Pearson Sacked

[ARM1968]

Short term success? A Preki? I'm having my brekki - cyonide on toast.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

I see what the difference if opinion was now:

-Pearson wanted us to be good

-The Thais wanted us to be shit

[Foxhateram]

I still cannot get my head around his Sacking. For me to sack someone who has done so much for the club it would have to be something pretty dramatic, which despite some people's opinion of him, I just can't imagine nige stepping so dramatically out of line. Behind closed doors he is a calm and good natured guy.

Now he's gone and we are rumoured to have put a guy with no experience of England in charge. I can't understand the logic. I really can't.

I hope I'm wrong but it feels like everything nige has built is about to topple on its knees.

[Webbo]

I still cannot get my head around his Sacking. For me to sack someone who has done so much for the club it would have to be something pretty dramatic, which despite some people's opinion of him, I just can't imagine nige stepping so dramatically out of line. Behind closed doors he is a calm and good natured guy.

Now he's gone and we are rumoured to have put a guy with no experience of England in charge. I can't understand the logic. I really can't.

I hope I'm wrong but it feels like everything nige has built is about to topple on its knees.

Can you imagine him being sacked for no reason at all?

If you're Asian you've obviously got no clue about football and appointing a non entity with no record of success will seem like a good idea to you.

They've only invested millions into the club, that proves they want the club to fail miserably.

[st albans fox]

I guess we will never find out, but in the absence of a 'wow' appointment aka klopp, we can be pretty sure that Pearson wasn't sacked to bring in his replacement. it's the other way around. I've read too many posts and tweets - ' we sacked Pearson for this?'. Er no, we didn't. We sacked Nigel and then we had to recruit a replacement. it seems we didn't make provision for the sacking. The candidates don't seem that great do they?

In that context, maybe the board can be respected for their stance (be it moral or ambition)? you may not agree with them but they couldn't be accused of taking the easy option of maintaining the status quo.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

Can you imagine him being sacked for no reason at all?

If you're Asian you've obviously got no clue about football and appointing a non entity with no record of success will seem like a good idea to you.

They've only invested millions into the club, that proves they want the club to fail miserably.

Well if they told us the reason for the sacking maybe some may have some sympathy, their handling is nothing short of pathetic.

Most of the money they spent proves they have the rich kid in a sweet shop mentality. They made a shit tonne of cash from TV rights and with a half decent team would continue to.

I would says its pretty much they wanted to spend big and bring in any old tom dick and harry! Pearson wanted a more measured approach to maintain morale, having a massive squad of big name signings is bad.They disagreed, he was sacked. The want a yes man to do whatever they say Preedog is that man

[Webbo]

It's the willful stupidity that gets me, people are saying things that they know makes no sense."The Thais have been looking for an excuse to sack" despite the fact they had at least half a dozen opportunities last season.

" The Thais have planned to bring in Hiddink all along/they've got no plan for the future".

" Successful business men think that putting someone with no record of success in charge of a multi-million pound businesses is a good idea".

None of these arguments make any sense at all, they're just ridiculous conspiracy theories used to justify prejudice against owners who have been great for us so far.

[Webbo]

Well if they told us the reason for the sacking maybe some may have some sympathy, their handling is nothing short of pathetic.

Most of the money they spent proves they have the rich kid in a sweet shop mentality. They made a shit tonne of cash from TV rights and with a half decent team would continue to.

I would says its pretty much they wanted to spend big and bring in any old tom dick and harry! Pearson wanted a more measured approach to maintain morale, having a massive squad of big name signings is bad.They disagreed, he was sacked. The want a yes man to do whatever they say Preedog is that man

And if they did tell us you'd say they were smearing Nige.

Go back a season or 2 and read some of the posts by seenitall or dangerous tiger. That's what the Pearson fanatics sound like.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

I think the blind rimming of the owners is daft too...it was that which caused this kind of issue. They are rich people they give no shits for anyone, they are only interested in serving their own personal interests...whatever they maybe. On recent news it seems they want to be known for taking Leicester City from the Premier to conference in 4 years.

[Webbo]

I think the blind rimming of the owners is daft too...it was that which caused this kind of issue. They are rich people they give no shits for anyone, they are only interested in serving their own personal interests...whatever they maybe. On recent news it seems they want to be known for taking Leicester City from the Premier to conference in 4 years.

If pointing out that ridiculous conspiracies theories make no sense is rimming now then I'm guess I'm guilty. As for the rest, I'm not personally acquainted with then like you so I wouldn't know.

[Fox Ulike]

I guess we will never find out, but in the absence of a 'wow' appointment aka klopp, we can be pretty sure that Pearson wasn't sacked to bring in his replacement. it's the other way around. I've read too many posts and tweets - ' we sacked Pearson for this?'. Er no, we didn't. We sacked Nigel and then we had to recruit a replacement. it seems we didn't make provision for the sacking. The candidates don't seem that great do they?

In that context, maybe the board can be respected for their stance (be it moral or ambition)? you may not agree with them but they couldn't be accused of taking the easy option of maintaining the status quo.

 

 

What the Thais want from LCFC is fundamentally different to what the fans want from LCFC.

 

We're interested in having a successful football team. The Thais are interested in a football team that promotes the King Power brand.

 

Most of the time, this difference is completely invisible, because a successful football team does promote the King Power brand, and so the aims of the Thais and the fans appear to be one and the same.

 

However, sex scandals don't promote the King Power brand.

 

The Thais just made a business decision. Which was the biggest risk:  not to the football club, but to the King Power brand:

 

a) Allowing the maverick Manager to publically support his son, a man who had been sacked for his part in a sex scandal.

b) Risk the Premiership status of the football club.

 

Since a) is a bigger risk to King Power than b), they obviously took the decision that best protected the KP brand.

 

However, right now, they must be wondering if they have made the right decision. The club lacks leadership and direction. This is also bad for the KP brand. So will be the potential disaster that next season already looks like it might become.

 

Whilst the sex scandal is bad, it will blow over quickly, whilst getting relegated and losing all our best players will take years to recover from.

 

The Thais have made the wrong decision. I'm sure they must now realise this. The question is whether they have the flexibility of ego to admit their mistake and reappoint Pearson before it's too late...

 

BRING BACK PEARSON NOW!

[Frank to be]

The apparent lack of any immediate replacement pretty much guarantees it wasn't a planned sacking.

The fact that it was some time after the Thai 3 were sacked suggests it was a separate, if related, incident.

The club, Pearson himself, his staff, the players and the LMA are all silent on the matter.

Which all strongly suggests that Pearson did something that crossed the line, he was sacked, and nobody who knows what happened has any complaints.

In that context, criticism of the owners is ridiculous. They did what they had to do, not necessarily what they wanted to do.

The silence may also be as much for Pearson's benefit as it is the club's. If he did something worth instant dismissal and it got out, his reputation would be in tatters.

[Fox Ulike]

The apparent lack of any immediate replacement pretty much guarantees it wasn't a planned sacking.

The fact that it was some time after the Thai 3 were sacked suggests it was a separate, if related, incident.

The club, Pearson himself, his staff, the players and the LMA are all silent on the matter.

Which all strongly suggests that Pearson did something that crossed the line, he was sacked, and nobody who knows what happened has any complaints.

In that context, criticism of the owners is ridiculous. They did what they had to do, not necessarily what they wanted to do.

The silence may also be as much for Pearson's benefit as it is the club's. If he did something worth instant dismissal and it got out, his reputation would be in tatters.

 

 

The owners are acting in the best interests of King Power, not the football club. If you choose not to criticise them for that, then that's up to you. But you have become a supporter of King Power, not Leicester City.

 

How can anybody think that the current shambles is ‘in the best interests’ of the club?

[Socks]

Pearson Sacked  ?   When ? 

[GingerrrFox]

The apparent lack of any immediate replacement pretty much guarantees it wasn't a planned sacking.

The fact that it was some time after the Thai 3 were sacked suggests it was a separate, if related, incident.

The club, Pearson himself, his staff, the players and the LMA are all silent on the matter.

Which all strongly suggests that Pearson did something that crossed the line, he was sacked, and nobody who knows what happened has any complaints.

In that context, criticism of the owners is ridiculous. They did what they had to do, not necessarily what they wanted to do.

The silence may also be as much for Pearson's benefit as it is the club's. If he did something worth instant dismissal and it got out, his reputation would be in tatters.

What they had to do for themselves not this football club.

In a week we've gone from optimisim and signing quality players to progress and build on what we've got, to signing no ****er and being linked with the equivalent of Evo Stik North managers.

We've got 3 "fit" central midfielders FFS and one of them is Dean Hammond!

[inckley fox]

Hull, a team that's always been a lower league club until recently had 2 years in the premier league and a cup final. I think you're being a little hard on the owners there.

 

They hadn't played much in the top flight previously, but they had been in the second tier for the vast bulk of their history (which is where they are now), and had been in the Premier League just a few seasons earlier, and without having to worry about someone changing their name to the Hull City Tigers. As things stand, I think a lot of Hull fans could be forgiven for not being especially grateful to their owners.

[inckley fox]

The apparent lack of any immediate replacement pretty much guarantees it wasn't a planned sacking.

The fact that it was some time after the Thai 3 were sacked suggests it was a separate, if related, incident.

The club, Pearson himself, his staff, the players and the LMA are all silent on the matter.

Which all strongly suggests that Pearson did something that crossed the line, he was sacked, and nobody who knows what happened has any complaints.

In that context, criticism of the owners is ridiculous. They did what they had to do, not necessarily what they wanted to do.

The silence may also be as much for Pearson's benefit as it is the club's. If he did something worth instant dismissal and it got out, his reputation would be in tatters.

 

You've just made a series of guesses and then displayed it as a reason for not criticising the owners.

 

You've also assumed that whichever line you imagine Pearson to have crossed was a justifiably-drawn line, the crossing of which clearly warranted a sacking. That's an incredible string of guesses and assumptions.

 

I understand that there's a possible scenario wherein firing Pearson would have been understandable. But there are many others by which it wouldn't be, and precious few which would have made his sacking unavoidable. If we were joining dots then we might look at how this board, while buying out the club, edged him out in 2010, or considered sacking him in 2013, or actually did sack him four months ago only to back-track, before inventing imaginary lines which Pearson may or may not have crossed, based on carefully selected nuggets of information, a huge chunk of speculation in the Mirror and the Mail, and a staggering amount of filling-in-the-blanks.

 

As for that scenario wherein firing Pearson would be understandable, if neither the board nor the manager will tell us what happened then the only thing we've got to go on is that we fired one of our best ever managers at the peak of his success. If, for some reason, you're convinced that there's more at play then fine, just like believing in God or Satan or Allah or Vishnu is fine. But there isn't actually any evidence, in this case, for any of it being true.

[Chairman of the Bored]

The way this is being managed by the club smacks a little of invading Iraq with no exit strategy. I fully expect we'll be embroiled in a lengthy struggle with few positive outcomes. A puppet regime will be created and everything will fall apart rapidly.

[Frank to be]

The owners are acting in the best interests of King Power, not the football club. If you choose not to criticise them for that, then that's up to you. But you have become a supporter of King Power, not Leicester City.

How can anybody think that the current shambles is ‘in the best interests’ of the club?

Did you not read anything else I wrote? As I said, it looks increasingly like they had no choice but to sack him and nobody, Pearson included, has any complaints.

What we currently have is a managerial search conducted in private. It's not a shambles at all.

[Frank to be]

You've just made a series of guesses and then displayed it as a reason for not criticising the owners.

You've also assumed that whichever line you imagine Pearson to have crossed was a justifiably-drawn line, the crossing of which clearly warranted a sacking. That's an incredible string of guesses and assumptions.

I understand that there's a possible scenario wherein firing Pearson would have been understandable. But there are many others by which it wouldn't be, and precious few which would have made his sacking unavoidable. If we were joining dots then we might look at how this board, while buying out the club, edged him out in 2010, or considered sacking him in 2013, or actually did sack him four months ago only to back-track, before inventing imaginary lines which Pearson may or may not have crossed, based on carefully selected nuggets of information, a huge chunk of speculation in the Mirror and the Mail, and a staggering amount of filling-in-the-blanks.

As for that scenario wherein firing Pearson would be understandable, if neither the board nor the manager will tell us what happened then the only thing we've got to go on is that we fired one of our best ever managers at the peak of his success. If, for some reason, you're convinced that there's more at play then fine, just like believing in God or Satan or Allah or Vishnu is fine. But there isn't actually any evidence, in this case, for any of it being true.

There isn't any evidence for anything you've ever said on the matter to be true, either.

And none of the criticisms make any sense as pointed out by Webbo.

Frankly the whole "they sacked him to protect king power" thing is ludicrous given how much they let him get away with. It's abundantly clear in my mind that Pearson did something that crossed the line. Was that line incorrectly placed? Unlikely given how much they previously let him get away with.

We're all guessing here of course, yourself included, but it seems to me, for a variety of reasons that make perfect sense, that the sacking must have been justified. While the reasons why it wouldn't have been justified all make no sense at all.

A reasonable person would side with the arguments that actually make sense.

[Fox Ulike]

Did you not read anything else I wrote? As I said, it looks increasingly like they had no choice but to sack him and nobody, Pearson included, has any complaints.

What we currently have is a managerial search conducted in private. It's not a shambles at all.

 

Yes I did. I particularly enjoyed the bit where you said they had 'no choice' but to sack him. Well, they could have chosen not to.

 

You do actually sound like a King Power employee who has been tasked with trying to  get the fans on the forums back on-side and behind the owners. Is that accurate?

 

There doesn't seem to be another reason for your relentless sucking-up to them...

[Mark_w]

You do actually sound like a King Power employee who has been tasked with trying to  get the fans on the forums back on-side and behind the owners. Is that accurate?

 

If he is he wants the sack, he's doing a terrible job.

[MC Prussian]

There isn't any evidence for anything you've ever said on the matter to be true, either.

And none of the criticisms make any sense as pointed out by Webbo.

Frankly the whole "they sacked him to protect king power" thing is ludicrous given how much they let him get away with. It's abundantly clear in my mind that Pearson did something that crossed the line. Was that line incorrectly placed? Unlikely given how much they previously let him get away with.

We're all guessing here of course, yourself included, but it seems to me, for a variety of reasons that make perfect sense, that the sacking must have been justified. While the reasons why it wouldn't have been justified all make no sense at all.

A reasonable person would side with the arguments that actually make sense.

Yes, a reasonable person sits back, gathers as much information as possible and sees that we've just sacked our most successful manager in 10, 15 years with no expanded, precise explanation given. That after helping the club maintain its position within the Premier League in its first season upon promotion and after having been immediately re-instated earlier this year when he had already been shown the door.

A sacking that raises more questions than it answers.

There's en eerie silence surrounding the club ever since; a decision that isn't popular with a large part of the fanbase.

A scenario that screams for concerns.

[Hirsty The Blue 94]

The apparent lack of any immediate replacement pretty much guarantees it wasn't a planned sacking.

The fact that it was some time after the Thai 3 were sacked suggests it was a separate, if related, incident.

The club, Pearson himself, his staff, the players and the LMA are all silent on the matter.

Which all strongly suggests that Pearson did something that crossed the line, he was sacked, and nobody who knows what happened has any complaints.

In that context, criticism of the owners is ridiculous. They did what they had to do, not necessarily what they wanted to do.

The silence may also be as much for Pearson's benefit as it is the club's. If he did something worth instant dismissal and it got out, his reputation would be in tatters.

You're making just as bigger assumptions. The fact that Pearson is considering legal action would suggest that he didn't do anything 'sackable.' If that were the case the legal teams would have advised his client not to comment in the media, which is why we have heard nothing.

[Frank to be]

Yes I did. I particularly enjoyed the bit where you said they had 'no choice' but to sack him. Well, they could have chosen not to.

You do actually sound like a King Power employee who has been tasked with trying to get the fans on the forums back on-side and behind the owners. Is that accurate?

There doesn't seem to be another reason for your relentless sucking-up to them...

I don't know if you're deliberately refusing to understand the concept of an unavoidable sacking? If he has done something worthy of instant dismissal, as seems to be the case, then it's worthy of instant dismissal.

No, I'm not a King Power employee, nor am I an NPFC fan, I'm a Leicester City fan.