The Doctor Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 You're entitled to your view. I think NPFC is a neat way of grouping together those who have contrived to assume the absolute worst of the current Leicester City owners and the absolute best of former manager Nigel Pearson from every angle even when heavily contradictory and however unlikely. You can disagree and call me names if you want. Show us all how mature you are, go on. It's not even remotely like that though - no-one here questioning the owners is doing it because they're a Nigel Pearson fan, they're leicester fans who support their club; which means wanting to see it be successful and head in the right direction. Pearson, for all his foibles, was improving us, there's no arguing with that. Combined with that the current owners have a very poor record with managerial changes (Sousa and Sven were both failures), and indeed actually so does the club - pretty much every successful manager has been followed up with a failure: for O'Neill see Taylor, for Little see McGhee, Bloomfield - McLintock etc. Given our history of appointing successful managers and how poor we are at finding them, we should be a lot more careful before just binning them off; we should have learnt that from the first time Nigel was forced out, 18 months of going backwards while spending more. People are angry with this decision because, on the face of it, it's absolutely absurd - we had a great manager who had pulled off an incredible end to the season and was giving us a hell of a lot to look forward to next season; we've binned him off for what exactly? "differences in perspective" - that's a horrifically vague non-committal reason and leaves very little justification for it, even more so now we're scrabbling round the discount bin for seemingly the biggest piece of mould we can find,
MC Prussian Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 You're entitled to your view. I think NPFC is a neat way of grouping together those who have contrived to assume the absolute worst of the current Leicester City owners and the absolute best of former manager Nigel Pearson from every angle even when heavily contradictory and however unlikely. You can disagree and call me names if you want. Show us all how mature you are, go on. Then how would you describe Nigel Pearson's negative attributes, if I may ask? What is it you don't like about him as a person and/or manager? Because you seem to be dwelling in this game where - ever since he's got the sack - you heinously take the piss out of all the people who've grown to like Pearson for what he's done on the sportive side of things. You're very irritating, because on one hand, you say you like Pearson, then get involved in arguing with people who're defending him (with good reason). Few of us can really say what Pearson is like outside of football, but he's often been described as warm, witty and kind - so you may refer to Pearson the manager instead in your criticism.
Frank to be Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 It's not even remotely like that though - no-one here questioning the owners is doing it because they're a Nigel Pearson fan, they're leicester fans who support their club; which means wanting to see it be successful and head in the right direction. Pearson, for all his foibles, was improving us, there's no arguing with that. Combined with that the current owners have a very poor record with managerial changes (Sousa and Sven were both failures), and indeed actually so does the club - pretty much every successful manager has been followed up with a failure: for O'Neill see Taylor, for Little see McGhee, Bloomfield - McLintock etc. Given our history of appointing successful managers and how poor we are at finding them, we should be a lot more careful before just binning them off; we should have learnt that from the first time Nigel was forced out, 18 months of going backwards while spending more. People are angry with this decision because, on the face of it, it's absolutely absurd - we had a great manager who had pulled off an incredible end to the season and was giving us a hell of a lot to look forward to next season; we've binned him off for what exactly? "differences in perspective" - that's a horrifically vague non-committal reason and leaves very little justification for it, even more so now we're scrabbling round the discount bin for seemingly the biggest piece of mould we can find, I understand the frustration only too well but I also understand that sometimes things happen that force your hand and that even the very best intentions aren't enough avoid problems from time to time.
Frank to be Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 Then how would you describe Nigel Pearson's negative attributes, if I may ask? What is it you don't like him as a person and/or manager? Because you seem to be dwelling in this game where - ever since he's got the sack - you heinously take the piss out of all the people who've grown to like Pearson for what he's done on the sportive side of things. You're very irritating, because on one hand, you say you like Pearson, then get involved in arguing with people who're defending him (with good reason). Few of us can really say what Pearson is like outside of football, but he's often been described as warm, witty and kind - so you may refer to Pearson the manager instead in your criticism. I like him. Always did. That doesn't mean I'll criticise the owners for sacking him because I think there's a very good chance that if I knew the reason for the sacking I would agree with it.
MC Prussian Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 I like him. Always did. That doesn't mean I'll criticise the owners for sacking him because I think there's a very good chance that if I knew the reason for the sacking I would agree with it. Elegantly swerved my actual question: What is it you don't like about Pearson as a person and/or manager?
Frank to be Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 Elegantly swerved my actual question: What is it you don't like about Pearson as a person and/or manager? I said I like him
MC Prussian Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 I said I like him You're not responding to my question. Because if you're saying you'd agree with the owners' decision if you knew about it - and this can't be something positive - then there must be some negative attributes attached to Pearson you'd agree with or know of. So - in your time.
Frank to be Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 You're not responding to my question. Because if you're saying you'd agree with the owners' decision if you knew about it - and this can't be something positive - then there must be some negative attributes attached to Pearson you'd agree with or know of. So - in your time. I don't really see the relevance, obviously I don't know Nigel personally. We're all capable of making mistakes.
MC Prussian Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 I don't really see the relevance, obviously I don't know Nigel personally. We're all capable of making mistakes. Hence my question about his managerial qualities or absence thereof you have an issue with. So, if you would be so kind.
Fox Ulike Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 I reckon NPFC would finish higher than Leicester Well they have got such a huge fanbase...
MC Prussian Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 Well they have got such a huge fanbase... WE ARE MASSIVE.
Frank to be Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 Hence my question about his managerial qualities or absence thereof you have an issue with. So, if you would be so kind. I've always said he was a good manager. Not perfect, but not imperfect enough to be sacked for footballing reasons.
TheUltimateWinner Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 I reckon NPFC would finish higher than Leicester One season on the way things are heading NPFC will have finished better than Leicester.
Webbo Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 And, I'll say again; this NPFC thing is absolutely shit-for-brains retarded. The people who are opposed to this decision are not fanatical supporters of Pearson who cared more about him than the club; The fact that it might be Pearson's own fault he was sacked is so utterly incomprehensible to some despite all of his well publicised history of stroppiness and confrontational nature. The amount of ridiculous conspiracy theories that have been created to absolve him of any blame kinda suggests otherwise. Before anyone asks I am not and never have been a Pearson hater, I'm just tired of the bullsh1t.
The Doctor Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 The fact that it might be Pearson's own fault he was sacked is so utterly incomprehensible to some despite all of his well publicised history of stroppiness and confrontational nature. The amount of ridiculous conspiracy theories that have been created to absolve him of any blame kinda suggests otherwise. Before anyone asks I am not and never have been a Pearson hater, I'm just tired of the bullsh1t. What ridiculous conspiracy theories? There've been a few that have suggested he might have been sacked for not agreeing to a transfer policy that the owners wanted, or the DOF structure we're by the looks of things wanting to move towards. Perfectly reasonable suggestions, and no more outlandish than suggesting he was sacked for backing his son over the thailand incident.
Webbo Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 What ridiculous conspiracy theories? There've been a few that have suggested he might have been sacked for not agreeing to a transfer policy that the owners wanted, or the DOF structure we're by the looks of things wanting to move towards. Perfectly reasonable suggestions, and no more outlandish than suggesting he was sacked for backing his son over the thailand incident. They sacked him because they'd already lined up Hiddink to replace him. They sacked him to promote the King Power Brand. They've always wanted to sack him they were just waiting for an excuse. Now can you or any other Pearson obsessives accept that it's possible that Pearson himself might actually be at least partly to blame for his dismissal?
The Doctor Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 They sacked him because they'd already lined up Hiddink to replace him. They sacked him to promote the King Power Brand. They've always wanted to sack him they were just waiting for an excuse. Now can you or any other Pearson obsessives accept that it's possible that Pearson himself might actually be at least partly to blame for his dismissal? Mentioned at the point where we'd sacked him and were being linked with Hiddink heavily within 48 hours, it would have seemed a fair suggestion at the time. And that's different to saying he was sacked for his behaviour how? Yes, I've already admitted it's possible repeatedly, as have others; which is another reason why this NPFC shite should be worthy of being kicked straight to talking balls.
Mark_w Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 They sacked him because they'd already lined up Hiddink to replace him. They sacked him to promote the King Power Brand. They've always wanted to sack him they were just waiting for an excuse. Now can you or any other Pearson obsessives accept that it's possible that Pearson himself might actually be at least partly to blame for his dismissal? He might, but we're going to speculate because on the face of it it's illogical and we've been given no explanation by the people who made the decision. Personally I've been given more reason to doubt the owners than to doubt Nigel Pearson, so unless some evidence suggests otherwise I suspect that Pearson has been treated unfairly.
MalarkyR Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 Pearson should buy a ticket in the Kop for our first home match of the season. Just imagine.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 They sacked him because they'd already lined up Hiddink to replace him. They sacked him to promote the King Power Brand. They've always wanted to sack him they were just waiting for an excuse. Now can you or any other Pearson obsessives accept that it's possible that Pearson himself might actually be at least partly to blame for his dismissal? Well said. I completely agree. There are large numbers of people, who just don't want to believe he could have deserved to be sacked. Their silly heads are stuck in the sand. Ostriches!
Alf Bentley Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 The fact that it might be Pearson's own fault he was sacked is so utterly incomprehensible to some despite all of his well publicised history of stroppiness and confrontational nature. The amount of ridiculous conspiracy theories that have been created to absolve him of any blame kinda suggests otherwise. Before anyone asks I am not and never have been a Pearson hater, I'm just tired of the bullsh1t. I fully accept that it MIGHT have been his fault, but we've had no real info about that. It would be helpful, then, if the club gave more information about the reason for his dismissal. Not every last detail, as that could end up in a slanging match or legal case. But surely it would be in the owners' benefit to clarify to fans whether the "fundamental differences in perspective" that supposedly necessitated his dismissal related to football issues or off-field conduct detrimental to the reputation of King Power/LCFC? As he wasn't sacked in the immediate wake of either the racist sex video fiasco or the sacking of the "Bang-Cock 3" (he was sacked 2 weeks after them), presumably it wasn't due to his immediate reaction? Of course, maybe he acted outrageously a couple of weeks later, or refused to accept the decision.....or refused to accept their intervention in footballing decisions (e.g. the proposed purchase of Charlie Austin). Whatever the grounds, owners with any sense wouldn't sack a successful manager without very good reason. It's in everyone's interests for them to give a GENERAL idea what that reason was. In any case, if he'd done something truly outrageous, presumably they could have sacked him for gross misconduct, like the Bang-Cock 3? And they should have bent over backwards to keep him unless they had VERY good reason not to.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 I'm sure you'd be saying that if I'd twisted his words. Yes it is you who is negative. You're the one who goes against the grain for the sake of it on here when things are going well. One fluke in your favour doesn't change your true colours. Charlie boy, you need to calm down! You may have lost the love of your life, but there are plenty more fish in the sea! Now, dry your hanky, and give us all a big smile and a
sphericalfox Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 I fully accept that it MIGHT have been his fault, but we've had no real info about that. It would be helpful, then, if the club gave more information about the reason for his dismissal. Not every last detail, as that could end up in a slanging match or legal case. But surely it would be in the owners' benefit to clarify to fans whether the "fundamental differences in perspective" that supposedly necessitated his dismissal related to football issues or off-field conduct detrimental to the reputation of King Power/LCFC? As he wasn't sacked in the immediate wake of either the racist sex video fiasco or the sacking of the "Bang-Cock 3" (he was sacked 2 weeks after them), presumably it wasn't due to his immediate reaction? Of course, maybe he acted outrageously a couple of weeks later, or refused to accept the decision.....or refused to accept their intervention in footballing decisions (e.g. the proposed purchase of Charlie Austin). Whatever the grounds, owners with any sense wouldn't sack a successful manager without very good reason. It's in everyone's interests for them to give a GENERAL idea what that reason was. In any case, if he'd done something truly outrageous, presumably they could have sacked him for gross misconduct, like the Bang-Cock 3? And they should have bent over backwards to keep him unless they had VERY good reason not to. Apparently Pearson wasn't bothered that they filmed it in portrait. This simply is a big no-no. Top knows that if you're going to film anything, turn your camera sideways, and not make it impossible to to view properly on a widescreen monitor.
Alf Bentley Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 They sacked him because they'd already lined up Hiddink to replace him. They sacked him to promote the King Power Brand. They've always wanted to sack him they were just waiting for an excuse. Now can you or any other Pearson obsessives accept that it's possible that Pearson himself might actually be at least partly to blame for his dismissal? Well said. I completely agree. A Man Who Boozes An Irish Poem of Unknown Origin It was a year ago, September a day I well remember I was walking up and down in drunken pride when my knees began to flutter and I fell down in the gutter and a pig came by and lay down by my side As I lay there in the gutter thinking thoughts I could not utter I thought I heard a passing lady say, "You can tell a man who boozes by the company he chooses..." And with that, the pig got up and walked away
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.