DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 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. Thanks for the name dropping Webbo. You're probably right.
Webbo 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. If Pearson feels hard done by why doesn't he tell us all what happened?
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 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 So you're a boozer are you? Or, perhaps the pig that got up and walked away? Which ever it is, it must take a lot of courage, to infer that to us all. You have my deepest sympathy
Matt Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 If Pearson feels hard done by why doesn't he tell us all what happened? 'Gagged' by the owners? Part of his payoff agreement? Not wanting to damage potential legal action he is apparently looking into? As i've said in other threads though if it's true he is looking into taking legal action i'm presuming he'll have to say his piece, give evidence, tell a jury what happened, his version/story. I'd also guess he'd keep quiet for the time being even more so if he is considering and looking into legal action.
The Doctor Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 If Pearson feels hard done by why doesn't he tell us all what happened? Who says he: a) is able to? (No NDAs) b) is in a position to? (finished settling the compensation) c) would want to? (He was always quite firm about not talking about other clubs when it came to transfers and against airing private matters in public).
Webbo Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 Who says he: a) is able to? (No NDAs) b) is in a position to? (finished settling the compensation) c) would want to? (He was always quite firm about not talking about other clubs when it came to transfers and against airing private matters in public). Exactly, these no disclosure agreements work both ways and yet the the owners are being criticised for not telling us what happened.
The Doctor Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 Exactly, these no disclosure agreements work both ways and yet the the owners are being criticised for not telling us what happened. But we don't know that there is an NDA, and even still they should say more than difference in opinion - that tells us nothing, even just an addendum to that statement "over the future progression of the team" or "over personnel" would tell us more. As it is they've said exactly nothing about why he was sacked, difference in opinion could mean absolutely anything, from discipline of the bang-cock 3 to transfer policy to what sort of tea to serve in the cafeteria... The owners are being criticised because from where we're sitting they've just cut off our nose, and not even told us whether it was to spite the face, let alone what the face had done to deserve it.
BlueSi13 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. I don't think there's a cat in hells chance of you disagreeing with them that's for sure. What part of King Power do you work for again?
Webbo Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 But we don't know that there is an NDA, and even still they should say more than difference in opinion - that tells us nothing, even just an addendum to that statement "over the future progression of the team" or "over personnel" would tell us more. As it is they've said exactly nothing about why he was sacked, difference in opinion could mean absolutely anything, from discipline of the bang-cock 3 to transfer policy to what sort of tea to serve in the cafeteria... The owners are being criticised because from where we're sitting they've just cut off our nose, and not even told us whether it was to spite the face, let alone what the face had done to deserve it. If they wanted to sack him for spite they had countless opportunities last season. If they had always planned to get rid he'd have gone at the end of the season. They stood by him times, they've backed him in the transfer market. There's nothing to suggest it was done for anything other than unavoidable reasons.
Guest Bob Hazels shorts Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 Lots of we love Nigel blind love-in stuff on here. Totally cocked up for most of the season post Man U, obviously started to learn and pulled it together. For that reason I'd prefer him to have stayed but it appears he has forced his dismise. Those who slag off the owners I'm suspecting you are either young, have short memories or don't recognise when we are well off. We can survive and hopefully continue to progress easier without Pearson that the current owners. I'd fill my undies if they called it a day.
The Doctor Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 If they wanted to sack him for spite they had countless opportunities last season. If they had always planned to get rid he'd have gone at the end of the season. They stood by him times, they've backed him in the transfer market. There's nothing to suggest it was done for anything other than unavoidable reasons. I think you've entirely missed the point with that first line... There's nothing to suggest any sort of reason why it was done - they could have sacked him over differences in ambition, over differences in transfer policy, over the thailand incident, any bloody thing. Lots of we love Nigel blind love-in stuff on here. Totally cocked up for most of the season post Man U, obviously started to learn and pulled it together. For that reason I'd prefer him to have stayed but it appears he has forced his dismise. Those who slag off the owners I'm suspecting you are either young, have short memories or don't recognise when we are well off. We can survive and hopefully continue to progress easier without Pearson that the current owners. I'd fill my undies if they called it a day. Oh, I recognise when we're well off, and we were well off under Pearson, and let's be clear, we were getting there with him and without them in 09/10. They actually took us backwards for a while.
BlueSi13 Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 Lots of we love Nigel blind love-in stuff on here. Totally cocked up for most of the season post Man U, obviously started to learn and pulled it together. For that reason I'd prefer him to have stayed but it appears he has forced his dismise. Those who slag off the owners I'm suspecting you are either young, have short memories or don't recognise when we are well off. We can survive and hopefully continue to progress easier without Pearson that the current owners. I'd fill my undies if they called it a day. That's weird because let's take in to consideration: Leicester City WITH Pearson and WITHOUT the Thais: Leicester City finish in the playoff spots and are narrowly defeated by Cardiff City on Penalties. This being the season after winning League One at an absolute canter. Major progress after the club had not long hit rock bottom. Leicester City WITHOUT Pearson and WITH the Thais: Sacked Pearson brought in Paulo Sousa who swiftly takes us down to the bottom of the table. Hire Sven-Goran Erikkson who sends the clubs outgoings and debt into orbit with precious little chance of us being promoted in return. Major regression in terms of on the pitch performance and financial stability. I personally think you're judgement is rather misplaced. If they mess this up and we go down I pray to god they'll **** right off personally.
Guest Bob Hazels shorts Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 The reason this has freaked people out is that virtually all football managers are sacked for performance and this is there for all to see. Pearsons as we know is for conduct, actions, atitude etc ?. More of a break up of a marriage for unreasonable behaviour. The board may be as sick as parrots also ans wanted to avoid it. I know for a fact he's a great guy but something at the club has broken.
Guest Bob Hazels shorts Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 That's weird because let's take in to consideration: Leicester City WITH Pearson and WITHOUT the Thais: Leicester City finish in the playoff spots and are narrowly defeated by Cardiff City on Penalties. This being the season after winning League One at an absolute canter. Major progress after the club had not long hit rock bottom. Leicester City WITHOUT Pearson and WITH the Thais: Sacked Pearson brought in Paulo Sousa who swiftly takes us down to the bottom of the table. Hire Sven-Goran Erikkson who sends the clubs outgoings and debt into orbit with precious little chance of us being promoted in return. Major regression in terms of on the pitch performance and financial stability. I personally think you're judgement is rather misplaced. If they mess this up and we go down I pray to god they'll **** right off personally.
Webbo Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 That's weird because let's take in to consideration: Leicester City WITH Pearson and WITHOUT the Thais: Leicester City finish in the playoff spots and are narrowly defeated by Cardiff City on Penalties. This being the season after winning League One at an absolute canter. Major progress after the club had not long hit rock bottom. Leicester City WITHOUT Pearson and WITH the Thais: Sacked Pearson brought in Paulo Sousa who swiftly takes us down to the bottom of the table. Hire Sven-Goran Erikkson who sends the clubs outgoings and debt into orbit with precious little chance of us being promoted in return. Major regression in terms of on the pitch performance and financial stability. I personally think you're judgement is rather misplaced. If they mess this up and we go down I pray to god they'll **** right off personally. Where were we when they came in, where are we now?
Guest Bob Hazels shorts Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 Even Martin ONeil took time to find his feet. They were new to the game and country and if we're honest most thought getting Pearson back was because they hadn't got a clue. The knowledge and infrastructure is very different. I obviously hope we get a better manager, they do exist. Time to move on He's gone
katieakita Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 There are two sides to a story and i haven't heard one yet. There are plenty of versions of events doing the rounds and so far since they came to the club believe the owners have been as good as any in the country. We might never know the true reasoning behind Pearson leaving and time will prove if it was a good move for the club. One thing for sure is the owners have ploughed mega bucks into the club and if this fails it will be them who foot the bill for this.
MC Prussian Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 Even Martin ONeil took time to find his feet. They were new to the game and country and if we're honest most thought getting Pearson back was because they hadn't got a clue. The knowledge and infrastructure is very different. I obviously hope we get a better manager, they do exist. Time to move on He's gone He's not dead yet!
inckley fox 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'd argue that as one of the longest serving managers in football, and one of the characters who - as a player and manager - has had a tendency to remain an unusually long time at clubs, the evidence points to Pearson being quite easy to get along with in a professional capacity. I'd also argue that nobody on this forum has the first clue about whether his public persona mirrors his behind-closed-doors professional persona. According to his current players, so far as we've heard, it doesn't, in fact the opposite is true. According to Jimmy Bullard, it does. But the problem with the arguments in defence of the board - in terms of how well they're formulated as arguments, from an objective viewpoint - is that they hinge around a series of assumptions, in spite of there being all sorts of facts and hard evidence which indicate that it was a bad idea to fire Pearson (i.e. results, success etc. - the stuff we should be worried about). Primarily that Pearson has done something unprofessional and exceptional which, while we've seen hints at such behaviour publicly, has clearly not happened at any previous point in his 30+ year professional history of interacting with coaches, bosses, chairmen. In addition he has always, while in employment, explicitly backed his bosses. It's not as if he's an 'O'Neill' who spars with his owners and chief execs in the full glare of the media. On the other hand we've known this board force him out once before, for no apparent reason, and sack-then-reinstate him on another, as well as firing two other managers, but the pro-board argument tends to overlook these tendencies. I would have thought that their ability to get along with managers should also be coming into question here. And these aren't assumptions, these are facts. Meanwhile the same people are assuming that, even if Pearson did have a portion of the blame, the board went to reasonable lengths to make their working relationship viable. And, considering he's the only manager to bring the owners any success whatsoever, 'reasonable lengths' should mean a concerted effort to rescue their working relationship. That may have happened, it might not have, but we have no more reason for believing that it did than we have for believing that Pearson has done something which makes his dismissal understandable. You say people's attempts 'to absolve him' are b*******. Of course they are. There's absolutely no evidence against him - so how can we, or why should we need to absolve him for anything? Every reaction is a reflection on the action, and in this case the argument for the board is a series of selectively chosen 'best guesses' from people. It has an appalling lack of substance. So, naturally, the counter-argument is b*******. It forms part of a debate over something which none of the debaters know anything about. The speculation could point to the owners being the more culpable party - they did, after all, do the sacking - or it could point to Pearson. But the facts simply say that Pearson was fired. And it would appear, to most rational observers, that the club may be worse off for having done so.
inckley fox Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 There are two sides to a story and i haven't heard one yet. There are plenty of versions of events doing the rounds and so far since they came to the club believe the owners have been as good as any in the country. We might never know the true reasoning behind Pearson leaving and time will prove if it was a good move for the club. One thing for sure is the owners have ploughed mega bucks into the club and if this fails it will be them who foot the bill for this. Their most important decisions for the club have been encouraging the exchange of Pearson for Sousa before they took over, which went wrong, appointing Sven, which went wrong, back-tracking and reappointing Pearson, which went right, not sacking him in 2013 and March 2015, which went right, and then sacking him again when the club appears to be at its strongest, which looks suspiciously like it might go wrong. Whatever, their most crucial and best decisions have always involved the support of Nigel Pearson. That should tell us something!
Guest Bob Hazels shorts Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 He's not dead yet! Hahaha I actually like the guy and his compassion. Turned up to one of the training staffs birthdays with his wife in a low key place. Stayed until the end, got stuck in singing and dancing....top bloke. Very sad his has an Achilles heel
BlueSi13 Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 Where were we when they came in, where are we now? Where were we before Pearson came in and where are we now he's gone? Pearson > Thais
jimmeh Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 The reason they are waiting to name the new manager is because the players are going away to a training camp in Austria this weekend for a week I think. Getting a manager in now wouldn't be right. I think he will be named after after Austria. Just a hunch
sylofox Posted 9 July 2015 Posted 9 July 2015 Not sure why people are shocked most of you wanted him gone at christmas and did not have a good word for him.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.