Pearson Sacked

[Big_Nige]

Right, that's it... I've had enough of this nonsense. After much searching online this is verbatim what Birch said.

"Our player of the season, Esteban Cambiasso, sat down in our canteen two months ago with Leo Ulloa and started writing on a piece of paper.

I asked him what it was and he said he had mapped out how we were going to survive. I can tell you that what he predicted pretty much all came true."

Now the key line that people decide to overlook is the very end, where he talks about predictions. Any normal individual would just come to the conclusion that between them they have highlighted where we could / would get the points to stay up... not that together they had somehow rewritten all out tactics and passed them on to Pearson. Who despite being labeled arrogant and pig headed etc by the same people, suddenly decided to start doing what he was told like a good boy.

It's utter fantasy by a bunch of people who have NEVER given Pearson the credit he deserves. The same people who said we got promoted from league one because he had loads of good players (he didn't), by the people who give Walsh all the credit. By the people who who said we got promoted from league one, the championship and stayed up despite his, not because of him.

They don't like him because of his attitude most probably, but also because he has made every last one of them look like absolute melons on three occasions.

Love this. So true, it does make me smile when people moan and criticise but can't become the bigger man and just admit he did a heck of a lot of good for this club.

In the grand scheme of things who gives a flying proverbial what his 'media perception' is like if we win of a Saturday. If anyone witnessed his reaction away at Burnley walking of the pitch last season, and didn't have any sort of man crush then there's something wrong with them.

[inckley fox]

Seeing as someone has decided that there should be no more messages for Pearson, for whatever reason that might be, I have to say it's a shame that 'Richard' has disappeared from the forum. It was fun to see how angry people get when confronted with an uncomfortable but staggeringly obvious truth, as he was.

 

It makes me smile that people use the 'FOAD' incident to justify Pearson's sacking but forget that Richard and his like were responsible for it happening in the first place. Pearson might have been unprofessional in his response but I'd hate the football club's future to be defined by how good managers choose to respond to the opinions of semi-evolved life forms.

 

So it's fun to see such people trying to convert their primal hoots into coherent sentences, and a real shame that we don't just let them get on with it. If Pearson had done so then, according to some, he might still be in a job. Maybe Richard is, as he says, a clever guy, and that's the point he's trying to make in a deliberately caveman-like manner. Good luck to him. Long live Richard.

[inckley fox]

How is it any more of a guess than what Babylon proposed?

Can you explain exactly why it's improbable?

All we know is that they were predicting something and that birch felt this was an interesting, relevant point to bring up.

Maybe they were predicting results. If so Birch must have a damn good memory for an old boy . Or maybe they were predicting something else, like the impact of tactical or personnel changes. I can't tell, you can't tell any better than I can. So stop trying to be the authority on what's likely and what isn't because you're not fooling anyone except those who want to be fooled.

And as for everything else I've used to "discredit" Pearson being "spectacular guesses". That's just utter nonsense. I'm not guessing when I say we nearly got relegated, not am I guessing when I say it took him two and a half years to get a side two points from play offs promoted, nor am I guessing when I say he tried numerous formations last season and they almost all failed, nor am I guessing when I say he was involved in several weird off the pitch incidents that made him look like a man clinging on to sanity by a thread.

 

Surely Babylon pointed out that the 'note' was a prediction, rather than a detailed plan which Cambiasson and Ulloa intended to submit to the manager, which is what Birch said it was in the first place. You really have made a habit of seizing on the obvious, twisting it beyond recognition, making a series of far-fetched assumptions about it and proclaiming it to be fact in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

As for Pearson making a right old meal of his predecessors' good work when he took over in 2011: Pearson took a side in 13th place to 9th place, a year after they'd finished 10th. He'd previously taken Leicester to the play-offs and he took us back there a year later, albeit with only three first team regulars remaining from 14 of Sven's permanent acquisitions.

 

The only time Leicester City has been in the second tier play-off zone, under any one of nine different managers since 2004, has been under Pearson. He's done it with this board's money, and without. But of course he was just the guy who buggered up all of Sven's good work.

 

You clearly haven't realised that, when your determination to be sensational and provocative gets the better of you and you post blatant nonsense, you aren't adding to the credibility of the wild theories you've proposed about Pearson's exit. You're just telling people that your mission in life is, after all, to be sensational and provocative.

 

I sincerely recommend basing your future arguments on fact. Or maybe I'm way off the mark. Let's say Pearson did let someone else run the club for three months, maybe he did delay the sound progress made by Sousa and Sven (who'd had us surging up the table, from 5th under Pearson, to 13th and only - as you point out - 2 points off the play-offs, and a mere 8 the season before). Perhaps he was a raging maniac, far worse than the likes of Ferguson, Pardew, Mourinho, who committed an act of gross misconduct only for the board to cover it up and take a hit from the fans to protect his honour. And Stephen King - maybe he killed John Lennon. He looks the sort.

[DEMANN]

People are incredibly frustrated on here because of the vast increase in the number of trolls and idiots on the forum since Nigel was sacked.

 

Babylon has had to put about 700 people right on the Cambiasso 'plan' over the course of the last week or so, most of them trolls, it's hardly surprising that he's getting a bit annoyed correcting people. I'm certainly getting annoyed hearing about whatever Esteban Cambiasso scribbled on a piece of paper.

The quote said 'mapped out how we were going to survive' among other things...Babylon only picked up on the line about predictions to make his point...These are all Birchenall's words anyway...Babylon doesn't know anymore than I do, so I don't know why he feels the need to correct people....I just thought the Birchenall quote was interesting...This doesn't diminish Pearson's achievements in my eyes.

[inckley fox]

Hi guys

 

Further to our hand-to-hand combat at Old Trafford re the various merits or otherwise of  NFBP, I'd just like to express my absolute pleasure at his dismissal. F'ckin' magic eh guys?

 

Shackle-free, we'll be a force to be reckoned with from now on. 

 

BLUE ARMY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Oh. A reasoned argument for Pearson's sacking. Thank God.

[Mark_w]

The quote said 'mapped out how we were going to survive' among other things...Babylon only picked up on the line about predictions to make his point...These are all Birchenall's words anyway...Babylon doesn't know anymore than I do, so I don't know why he feels the need to correct people....I just thought the Birchenall quote was interesting...This doesn't diminish Pearson's achievements in my eyes.

 

I know it doesn't. But there are lots of people claiming Cambiasso basically managed us for the last couple of months of the season despite having absolutely no proof that's true. With that in mind it's probably not difficult to see why a lot of people assumed you were just another making that claim. Emotions are fairly high at the moment, writing people off as horrible based on one response to your post isn't particularly fair all things considered.

[inckley fox]

The quote said 'mapped out how we were going to survive' among other things...Babylon only picked up on the line about predictions to make his point...These are all Birchenall's words anyway...Babylon doesn't know anymore than I do, so I don't know why he feels the need to correct people....I just thought the Birchenall quote was interesting...This doesn't diminish Pearson's achievements in my eyes.

 

You see, nonsense like this is the reason why people are being 'horrible' to you. Birch clearly said it was a prediction. To imply it was anything else - which we have no reason to believe it was - detracts from what Pearson achieved. So, in a debate about how much Pearson achieved and whether he should have been sacked, someone or other is going to have to correct you. If you manage not to be so obviously misguiding or wrong in the future you'll find that people are much nicer.

[Frank to be]

Surely Babylon pointed out that the 'note' was a prediction, rather than a detailed plan which Cambiasson and Ulloa intended to submit to the manager, which is what Birch said it was in the first place. You really have made a habit of seizing on the obvious, twisting it beyond recognition, making a series of far-fetched assumptions about it and proclaiming it to be fact in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Babylon picked up on the part where birch said it was a prediction and assumed that means that it must have been a prediction of where we could pick up points, when in fact it could just as easily have been a prediction of the impacts of different formations and team selections.

That's going on what Babylon posted. I can't find the quite myself and Babylon didn't link to it. If other posters are to be believed there's more to it than that which makes Babylon's theory less likely.

As for the rest of your points. You can paint me as whatever villain you like. I've been vocally pro-Pearson on here before the sacking and after and directly in response to you as well. Just because I don't worship the man doesn't mean I'm totally against him. But if you think making things up about my character is going to help you and your fans disregard my opinions more easily then go ahead. I operate on a higher level than cheap slander.

[DEMANN]

I know it doesn't. But there are lots of people claiming Cambiasso basically managed us for the last couple of months of the season despite having absolutely no proof that's true. With that in mind it's probably not difficult to see why a lot of people assumed you were just another making that claim. Emotions are fairly high at the moment, writing people off as horrible based on one response to your post isn't particularly fair all things considered.

You see, nonsense like this is the reason why people are being 'horrible' to you. Birch clearly said it was a prediction. To imply it was anything else - which we have no reason to believe it was - detracts from what Pearson achieved. So, in a debate about how much Pearson achieved and whether he should have been sacked, someone or other is going to have to correct you. If you manage not to be so obviously misguiding or wrong in the future you'll find that people are much nicer.

Not nonsense, you fool...Read the quote from Birchenall...Another thing...Where am I being obviously misguiding or wrong?...You're proper hard work man...I think I'll save my metaphorical breath. Do me a favour.

[Alf Bentley]

You are right, Clough's erratic behaviour didn't lead to him being sacked by Forest, it did however lead to their relegation.

Ferguson and Mourihnio are 2 of the best managers in the world and despite some of their erratic behaviour I don't remember them turning on members of the press in the same way. Instead they used and manipulated them rather than embarrassing themselves and the club with bizarre outbursts. Whether you agree with that statement or not in the eyes of our owners NP embarrassed them, the club and himself with the well documented incidents. For you, me and many others it may have been funny and a bit of a laugh, but we aren't the owners of this club.

They pay his wages, they deal with the fallout from his actions here and back in Thailand and they take the hit should his behaviour alienate sponsors, supporters, clients, backers etc

The profile and reputation of the club is massive in terms of attracting sponsors, players, a global market. This is the global era of the game, like it or not, and Pearson doesn't have the credibility of Fergie or Jose to get away with being a dick.

Whether you agree with it or not Pearson was clearly walking a fine line after the Mcarthur/sacking incident, he pushed it again with Ostrichgate, whether JP and the Bangkok 3 was the final straw or there were other incidents that influenced their decision you can't be surprised the owners lost patience and he probably would have gone a few months ago had there been a viable replacement.

As I said at the time in every argument you can find fault on both sides, but when a working relationship breaks down those that pay the wages will normally come out on top.

Now I realise I am drunk and this post has lost a coherent thread and gone a bit rambley.

In summary NP was great but not great enough to get away with anything, and he pissed off our owners one time too many and paid the price. Sorry for him, for us, for the club but we move on...

Claudio Ranieri's Blue and White Army!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

I'll try to avoid repeating arguments I've already made, but to respond to your points....

 

- What you say about the reasons for NP's sacking may or may not be true - and the sacking may or may not be justified - but it is pure speculation, as the owners have chosen not to reveal the reasons, even in general terms

 

- What you say about it being the owners' priority to protect their business image/interests is doubtless true but, if this was the motivation for the sacking, I don't like it. I don't like the fact that football clubs are used as mere tools of self-promotion or self-enrichment by businesspeople. Of course, I'm tilting at windmills. At the top level, football plays second fiddle to business interests. I've known people who gave up on football for that reason, but I've always loved the game too much to give up and have felt that I could still identify with football and LCFC despite the owners being mainly motivated by business interests. I felt that the interests of owners and fans could be compatible - and they seemed to be at LCFC. Maybe I was wrong and should go and watch Oadby Town, or if business interests inevitably predominate, maybe I should follow a different business sector by becoming a Barclaycard fan or a Microsoft fan? Maybe, though, I still feel that fans have the right to be unhappy at owners' business interests trumping footballing interests. It's still "the people's game". Overall, I think NP did rather well for King Power's business/financial interests, anyway!

 

- You're being a bit selective with your memories of Clough, Ferguson & Mourinho! Clough's erratic conduct may have led to Forest's relegation....but only after 18 years finishing in the top 10 year after year, winning the league, the European Cup twice, League Cup etc. During that time, he was known for odd and argumentative comments to the media and bizarre incidents (e.g. punching fans who'd invaded the pitch). Ferguson turned on the media to the extent of refusing to speak to the BBC for years on end - in a dispute over the conduct of his son, ironically....then there was the bizarre incident when Beckham was injured by a football boot kicked at him. Mourinho called Wenger a "voyeur", was disciplined for poking a rival manager in the eye and has constant run-ins with the authorities, yet the businesses employing them haven't seen any need to protect their image by sacking them. Yes, as you say, these managers have/had the greater credibility of having won trophies. But I feel that NP's achievements had earned him sufficient credibility for him not to be sacked without a very good reason.

 

Such a reason may exist. He may have chinned Top or refused to implement orders until his son was reinstated. If so, the sacking would regrettably be justified. But we don't know that. We don't even know that he was sacked for his personal conduct - and because football fans ARE a bit different to customers of Barclaycard or Microsoft, we SHOULD know (in general terms). Of course, legally the owners are not obliged to tell us anything. But, while clubs mainly make a profit and promote underlying business interests via TV rights & sponsorship, with an empty stadium the product they're selling would have a lot less appeal to broadcasters, advertisers, sponsors etc. Fans are part of the product that the owners sell to boost their profile or profits. We do still matter - and deserve an explanation.

 

Ah well! I probably am tilting at windmills. I like Ranieri on a personal level and hope he builds on Pearson's achievements. This lack of an explanation could come back to bite Claudio on the bum, though, if we start poorly. I hope not.

[DEMANN]

I know it doesn't. But there are lots of people claiming Cambiasso basically managed us for the last couple of months of the season despite having absolutely no proof that's true. With that in mind it's probably not difficult to see why a lot of people assumed you were just another making that claim. Emotions are fairly high at the moment, writing people off as horrible based on one response to your post isn't particularly fair all things considered.

OK fair enough.

[EnglishOxide]

If it was Dean Hammond who predicted where we were going to get results it wouldn't even be a story.

But because it was Esteban, our only world class player, it is used to detract from NP. Conveniently ignoring the fact that he has helped engineer great escapes in the past.

[trabuch]

Mods please shut this thread down. It's embarrassing.

There is a goodbye Nigel thread where people can say all this.

And I hope there is a hello Claudio thread where the positive people can look forward too.

But this thread FVCKING  annoys me. 

[MC Prussian]

Mods please shut this thread down. It's embarrassing.

There is a goodbye Nigel thread where people can say all this.

And I hope there is a hello Claudio thread where the positive people can look forward too.

But this thread FVCKING  annoys me. 

Then neither read nor comment on it. You've got it in your own hands.

[Raj]

I wish I hadn't posted now...I was just trying to get involved...People are horrible on here.

Keep plugging away mate.

People just think they are bigger and better than others cos they can Google things fast.... Keep with it as there are some decent posters on here...there's as great facility to use though if the same people bore you ...ignore button!!!

[Raj]

P.S this thread has surely run its cause!!!

[Babylon]

Does anyone have a clue why shakespeare and walsh stayed?

Because they are under contract, to walk away would mean they don't get paid and could mean they end up on gardening leave. It's fairly standard for coaches to wait around until one of the following happens. The manager they were wish gets a job elsewhere and his new club arrange compensation for them. Or until they are replaced by new coahces and get paid off to leave.

 

The club may have decided they would like some continuity around the place, firstly preseason is very important and we need people overseeing it who know all about the preparation. Secondly they might value those staff and wish to keep them if the new manager does.

 

It certainly doesn't suggest Pearson did anything "out of line", although we can presume there were disagreements anyway seeing as he has gone.

[inckley fox]

Not nonsense, you fool...Read the quote from Birchenall...Another thing...Where am I being obviously misguiding or wrong?...You're proper hard work man...I think I'll save my metaphorical breath. Do me a favour.

 

You see, calling people fools won't help you either. I read the quote and I'd fully expect any senior pro in a relegation fight to devote their time to figuring out how best they could help the team out of it. Surely being responsible, stepping up and being a leader on the pitch are all things which Pearson was vocally asking for last season and what Birch said about Cambiasso 'mapping out' and 'making predictions' for our escape is exactly what he would hope for. To imply that this might mean he was really in charge of the side, which has been a popular view among Pearson's less rational detractors, is misguiding, especially if that quote is supposed to be evidence for it, because that's not what was said at all.

 

 

Babylon picked up on the part where birch said it was a prediction and assumed that means that it must have been a prediction of where we could pick up points, when in fact it could just as easily have been a prediction of the impacts of different formations and team selections.

That's going on what Babylon posted. I can't find the quite myself and Babylon didn't link to it. If other posters are to be believed there's more to it than that which makes Babylon's theory less likely.

As for the rest of your points. You can paint me as whatever villain you like. I've been vocally pro-Pearson on here before the sacking and after and directly in response to you as well. Just because I don't worship the man doesn't mean I'm totally against him. But if you think making things up about my character is going to help you and your fans disregard my opinions more easily then go ahead. I operate on a higher level than cheap slander.

 

I've not made up anything about your character. What you are almost exclusively doing at the moment is twisting facts and making up imaginative assumptions about them, then trying to indicate that the popular view - in this case that Pearson was our manager and he led the team through the final ten games - is as much an assumption, and every bit as likely as yours.

 

Your assertions are full of highly unlikely and unsubstantiated assumptions which, as you well know, are bound to be provocative when they invariably lead to the conclusion that Pearson deserved the sack, and when you keep repeating them regardless of what people do to dismantle them.

 

We can talk all day about what opinion we held on x or y occasion. I've defended or criticised Pearson depending on the situation. But we're not debating whether Pearson could keep us in the Premier League any more, because he's already done it, so whether we believed he'd do it or not is irrelevant now. If someone were an unflinching supporter of our owners they would have backed Pearson until the end of June, then done exactly what you did at the moment of his exit.

 

What I'm suggesting is that you might not have been right on this occasion. And you're going to have to do better than claims that Cambiasso was really in charge, or that Pearson probably committed some act of gross misconduct which the board covered up to protect his honour, because he's a nutcase and they're just lovely.

[Babylon]

The predictions could just as easily have been along the lines of "if we play with xxxx formation it will have xxxx effects." You can't tell from that quote.

No you can't tell 100%, that's where you have to use your brain and deduce what the most likely of the two scenarios are. What you don't do though, is run around multiple football boards stating that the second and much more ridiculous version of events is actually a fact, then using said "fact" to lambast the manager... AGAIN.

 

Ain't that roughly what I said?...I just did it from memory rather than search for the article...I wasn't crediting Cambiasso with the run in. I don't know what went on...I'm a big Pearson fan...I do facts (just about), not conspiracy theories. Was what I said nonsense?

Don't take it to heart, you were just the tip of the iceburg and certainly aren't one of the people I'm directing my comments at, even though I did quote you.

[Babylon]

How is it any more of a guess than what Babylon proposed?

The only reason I bring it up is because a load of idiots are running around stating it as fact that it happened, I have proved that the wording clearly does not indicate that story. Ie. Stop making stuff up.

 

 

Maybe they were predicting results. If so Birch must have a damn good memory for an old boy .

Why would he have to remember the finer detail. They predict to stay up, we stay up from a massively unlikely situation... that in itself is interesting enough and not hard to remember.

 

This is also, it has to be pointed out... Alan Frigging Birchenal. King "dewberries" himself. Who, if you have ever spent any time with him, you will know he likes a good story and like to embelish things somewhat. It's not exactly Henry Winter reporting on it.

[Babylon]

The quote said 'mapped out how we were going to survive' among other things...Babylon only picked up on the line about predictions to make his point...These are all Birchenall's words anyway...Babylon doesn't know anymore than I do, so I don't know why he feels the need to correct people....I just thought the Birchenall quote was interesting...This doesn't diminish Pearson's achievements in my eyes.

Because people are stating it as fact, it's not fact.

 

If you map out some tactics on a piece of paper it's not a prediction is it. It's an idea. Plotting where you might pick up points, is a prediction. So lets think about what is more likely for one moment. Especially when the same people are saying that Pearson is stubborn, pig headed etc etc. We're now meant to believe from a very unclear comment, that he was no longer managing the team and that Cambiasso was.

[lgfualol]

I feel like this thread will never die.

[DEMANN]

Because people are stating it as fact, it's not fact.

 

If you map out some tactics on a piece of paper it's not a prediction is it. It's an idea. Plotting where you might pick up points, is a prediction. So lets think about what is more likely for one moment. Especially when the same people are saying that Pearson is stubborn, pig headed etc etc. We're now meant to believe from a very unclear comment, that he was no longer managing the team and that Cambiasso was.

I don't, for one moment, think that Cambiasso was managing the team, or calling the shots, or whatever. As I've said before, I'm a big Pearson fan. Birchenall's comments are unclear, especially now people from both sides of the argument are trying to analyse them. The terms 'mapped out' and 'predicted' only came from Birchenall. Is he the greatest living exponent of the English language? Mapped out in his words could mean scribbled 'wwwwwlwdw' on the back of an envelope for all I know. I wasn't trying to upset the apple cart.

[DEMANN]

You see, calling people fools won't help you either. I read the quote and I'd fully expect any senior pro in a relegation fight to devote their time to figuring out how best they could help the team out of it. Surely being responsible, stepping up and being a leader on the pitch are all things which Pearson was vocally asking for last season and what Birch said about Cambiasso 'mapping out' and 'making predictions' for our escape is exactly what he would hope for. To imply that this might mean he was really in charge of the side, which has been a popular view among Pearson's less rational detractors, is misguiding, especially if that quote is supposed to be evidence for it, because that's not what was said at all.

 

 

 

I've not made up anything about your character. What you are almost exclusively doing at the moment is twisting facts and making up imaginative assumptions about them, then trying to indicate that the popular view - in this case that Pearson was our manager and he led the team through the final ten games - is as much an assumption, and every bit as likely as yours.

 

Your assertions are full of highly unlikely and unsubstantiated assumptions which, as you well know, are bound to be provocative when they invariably lead to the conclusion that Pearson deserved the sack, and when you keep repeating them regardless of what people do to dismantle them.

 

We can talk all day about what opinion we held on x or y occasion. I've defended or criticised Pearson depending on the situation. But we're not debating whether Pearson could keep us in the Premier League any more, because he's already done it, so whether we believed he'd do it or not is irrelevant now. If someone were an unflinching supporter of our owners they would have backed Pearson until the end of June, then done exactly what you did at the moment of his exit.

 

What I'm suggesting is that you might not have been right on this occasion. And you're going to have to do better than claims that Cambiasso was really in charge, or that Pearson probably committed some act of gross misconduct which the board covered up to protect his honour, because he's a nutcase and they're just lovely.

First of all I apologise for calling you a fool...I can understand where you are coming from a bit more than I did last night. I most definitely do not think Cambiasso was in charge, as you think some people do. I fail to see where I was 'wrong' and 'misguided' when commenting on the quote which Babylon posted.

[Frank to be]

No you can't tell 100%, that's where you have to use your brain and deduce what the most likely of the two scenarios are. What you don't do though, is run around multiple football boards stating that the second and much more ridiculous version of events is actually a fact, then using said "fact" to lambast the manager... AGAIN.

Not sure if you're referring to me there because I haven't done anything of the sort.

You can't tell 100%, that's what I was getting at. Others have claimed that you've 'proved' that Birch was saying that Cambiasso had written down something along the lines of where we could pick up points and nothing at all to do with tactics. But the quote doesn't prove that. It still leaves open the possibility that he was predicting how different tactics might work.