Pearson Sacked

[Bagworthblue]

has Pearson been sacked?

[Chairman of the Bored]

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.

 

Absolutely. And if Webbo is 'tired of all the bullshit', why does he feel the need to read it and respond to it in that 'I'm just that little bit superior' kind of way?  

[inckley fox]

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.

 

I remember that we were 5th in the Championship with a team formed by Pearson with next to no investment in the process, before this board turned up. When they did, it took us three years to get back to such a position. Under Pearson. It's worth remembering that as a manager he took us 31 places up the league, and 20 of them were achieved before Khun Vichai and Khun Top had ever been heard of. Yes, I'm grateful that they smoothed our path up the next couple of rungs of the ladder, but to give them the full credit for our resurgence would suggest a very, very short memory!

[Webbo]

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!

There is absolutely no evidence of that.

Absolutely. And if Webbo is 'tired of all the bullshit', why does he feel the need to read it and respond to it in that 'I'm just that little bit superior' kind of way?  

If you want to know why don't you ask Webbo?

[Alf Bentley]

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 

 

A boozer no longer, sadly, but still a pig.

Always an honour to have the sympathy of a bouncy fellow like yourself, Tig. 

 

If Pearson feels hard done by why doesn't he tell us all what happened?

 

I don't know. As The Doctor suggests, there might be good legal, financial or ethical reasons - or there might not.

Or NP might think that he deserved to be sacked or that he can still get his job back or that risking a public argument would damage his chance of employment elsewhere (though only the latter seems a likely explanation).

 

But it's the LCFC board that has an ongoing relationship with LCFC fans. NP no longer has such a relationship.

 

Normally, it is the board that explains why a football manager has been sacked - and the sacked manager may or may not respond to that explanation.

 

By giving the meaningless explanation of "fundamental differences in perspective", the board risk giving the impression that they hold LCFC fans in utter contempt and don't give a shit what they think. That may be true, but it's not very good PR by them.

[katieakita]

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!

 

nobody can deny what has been achieved since his return however nobody can say we wouldn't have achieved the same with another manager. Really rate Pearson as a manager and am told he is a decent bloke but he has gone. Turning it around would we have achieved as much without the huge amount of investment?

[FoxSince88]

I've just made di matteo 4/1 on sky bet .....literally a conversation on live chat and it's gone from 20/1 to 4/1

[biggs]

Can we just hire Pearson back to end this thread

[Alf Bentley]

Where were we when they came in, where are we now?

 

 

We're 1 division higher than when the Thais came in - and 2 divisions higher than when Pearson came in.

[inckley fox]

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.

 

What total nonsense. Everything I said in the post could be perfectly well backed up. The board have sacked him, they met with Sousa in 2010 before Pearson left, they appointed Sven, they re-appointed Pearson, nearly sacked him, didn't, then fired him when he was at his most successful. These are actual real, clear facts. Sadly, you seem determined to avoid leaning on any real facts. Me pointing this out to you, and reminding you of the fact that nobody outside of the club (save Pearson and his lawyers) knows what happened, nor can they use it in any serious argument to justify firing Pearson, is simply a statement of the staggeringly obvious.

 

You are guessing that he was effectively fired for gross misconduct. He wasn't. Maybe secretly, behind closed doors, that was the 'real' reason but none of us have a clue as to whether that's the case or not. And if you personally do, then you've not presented anything to back up your claims, which means they're irrelevant.

 

So I think you have a fundamental problem understanding what 'facts' or 'sense' actually are, or how a convincing argument is formed. There are a whole number of reasons to believe that Nigel Pearson might be capable of losing his temper, or acting unprofessionally. There are also reasons for suspecting that our owners are capable of making poor decisions when it comes to hiring and firing, that they don't tend to show as much loyalty to their managers (three sackings in five years) as some suggested post-March, that this decision was not a snap one (see newspapers back in March) and even that they're not the devout, spiritual men of honour and truth that some imagine them to be (see allegations of Bangkok Airport scam). The next managerial appointment will, no doubt, bring more hard evidence as to the way they operate, and where their priorities lie.

 

But at the moment all we know is that they fired Nigel Pearson; as a consequence of which - here comes the speculation - we may well be considerably worse off. But that crucial first point isn't an assumption, it's unequivocally the only piece of evidence that we have. And that alone - the sacking of a successful manager - doesn't reflect well on the Leicester board right now. Until we hear some sort of explanation for it, it will continue to be a case of Owners Sacking a Successful Manager with No Good Reason, not because I've decided that the reasoning is inadequate, but rather because there isn't any reason to consider. While that's the case, it's literally impossible to form any meaningful argument against Pearson's role in the affair.

[Carl the Llama]

Not sure why people are shocked most of you wanted him gone at christmas and did not have a good word for him.

Big yellow taxi...

[eblair]

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.

this needs its own topic people who have blind faith in the owners or think we're totally incapable of existence without them need to screw their head on right

we were here before them and we will be here when they are long gone

they clearly haven't learnt from past debacles as well, anyone claiming that they're not trying sven mark ii need to look at the facts; the mercury who are fairly reliable regarding leicester publish an article that the owner want a big name... lost for words at how moronic that is

testament to pearson's ability he made them look sane  

[inckley fox]

There is absolutely no evidence of that.

 

 

There is, actually. A 2010 interview with Pearson in which he says that the new consortium was being shown around while he was still manager, and he knew nothing about it. He says Sousa was being lined up to replace him and was at both play-off games, as were the prospective buyers. The club subsequently chose to let him go and he resigned because he could see what was happening.

 

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/l/leicester_city/9055151.stm

 

and

 

  http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/football-league/paul-newman-sven-takes-a-turn-on-the-mandaric-merrygoround-2096847.html

 

No, it's not damning proof, and maybe Pearson had simply been wrong. Maybe Sousa wasn't at those games, maybe the new owners had been planning to place their faith in him as a manager. But Pearson is quite clear that the new owners did not see him as a part of the club's plans. And, to be honest, I think it would be naive for anybody else to fail to come to what is, after all, a very logical conclusion.

[EnglishOxide]

Inckley is bossing this.

[ARM1968]

For 80% of last Season Pearson was out of his depth - the results proved that. The dramatic and frankly unbelievable turn around in form has served for some to mask that.

Whether he had learned the PL we don't really know, but there is a fair chance we would have struggled again. Pearson did brilliantly for us overall and when set against most of the current candidates I would take him every time. However I do think there are managers out there who can improve us. I just hope we get one.

[Wymsey]

He won't get a better job than he had here, he may regret his actions (ostrich rant, 'strangling' McCarthy, FOAD) but I think his disagreement over his Son annoyed the owners too much.

[MC Prussian]

There is absolutely no evidence of that.

If you want to know why don't you ask Webbo?

Why don't you just make it public for everyone to see?

 

All I've noticed you doing in the past few days following the sacking of Pearson (and I'm not the only one, judging by some of the input in this thread) is that you're simply raising further questions as an answer or coming up with counterquestions in a "Devil's Advocate" kind of way, without taking a proper stance. Well, you are fielding with the owners - but then again, I'm not sure if you're being serious at all.

 

Why all the passive-aggressive mockery of many people who are simply deeply affected by the loss of one of our best managers in the past ten to fifteen years?

(I may remind you of the recent poll results on here)

 

You're also deleting comments that could potentially put you in a wrong light pretty swiftly.

 

What are you up to lately, Webbo?

[Frank to be]

What total nonsense. Everything I said in the post could be perfectly well backed up. The board have sacked him, they met with Sousa in 2010 before Pearson left, they appointed Sven, they re-appointed Pearson, nearly sacked him, didn't, then fired him when he was at his most successful. These are actual real, clear facts. Sadly, you seem determined to avoid leaning on any real facts. Me pointing this out to you, and reminding you of the fact that nobody outside of the club (save Pearson and his lawyers) knows what happened, nor can they use it in any serious argument to justify firing Pearson, is simply a statement of the staggeringly obvious.

You are guessing that he was effectively fired for gross misconduct. He wasn't. Maybe secretly, behind closed doors, that was the 'real' reason but none of us have a clue as to whether that's the case or not. And if you personally do, then you've not presented anything to back up your claims, which means they're irrelevant.

So I think you have a fundamental problem understanding what 'facts' or 'sense' actually are, or how a convincing argument is formed. There are a whole number of reasons to believe that Nigel Pearson might be capable of losing his temper, or acting unprofessionally. There are also reasons for suspecting that our owners are capable of making poor decisions when it comes to hiring and firing, that they don't tend to show as much loyalty to their managers (three sackings in five years) as some suggested post-March, that this decision was not a snap one (see newspapers back in March) and even that they're not the devout, spiritual men of honour and truth that some imagine them to be (see allegations of Bangkok Airport scam). The next managerial appointment will, no doubt, bring more hard evidence as to the way they operate, and where their priorities lie.

But at the moment all we know is that they fired Nigel Pearson; as a consequence of which - here comes the speculation - we may well be considerably worse off. But that crucial first point isn't an assumption, it's unequivocally the only piece of evidence that we have. And that alone - the sacking of a successful manager - doesn't reflect well on the Leicester board right now. Until we hear some sort of explanation for it, it will continue to be a case of Owners Sacking a Successful Manager with No Good Reason, not because I've decided that the reasoning is inadequate, but rather because there isn't any reason to consider. While that's the case, it's literally impossible to form any meaningful argument against Pearson's role in the affair.

Right. Well after all of that, much of it nothing to do with what we were previously talking about I might add, you seem to have actually agreed with me that we don't know why Pearson was sacked, and that any judgement is therefore based on pure speculation.

[Carl the Llama]

For 80% of last Season Pearson was out of his depth - the results proved that. The dramatic and frankly unbelievable turn around in form has served for some to mask that.

Whether he had learned the PL we don't really know, but there is a fair chance we would have struggled again. Pearson did brilliantly for us overall and when set against most of the current candidates I would take him every time. However I do think there are managers out there who can improve us. I just hope we get one.

Not so.  How often did we come back from a loss feeling like the performance was there but for an individual error/slice of bad luck?  The dramatic and unbelievable run at the end for many represented a vindication of our previous efforts, as well as proof that Nigel & the team had learned and adapted to the PL. I'm not saying anyone would even think of suggesting that we could make that kind of form permanent, but it was pretty obvious we weren't going to be struggling as much in the coming season as the one just gone.

[Webbo]

There is, actually. A 2010 interview with Pearson in which he says that the new consortium was being shown around while he was still manager, and he knew nothing about it. He says Sousa was being lined up to replace him and was at both play-off games, as were the prospective buyers. The club subsequently chose to let him go and he resigned because he could see what was happening.

 

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/l/leicester_city/9055151.stm

 

and

 

  http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/football-league/paul-newman-sven-takes-a-turn-on-the-mandaric-merrygoround-2096847.html

 

No, it's not damning proof, and maybe Pearson had simply been wrong. Maybe Sousa wasn't at those games, maybe the new owners had been planning to place their faith in him as a manager. But Pearson is quite clear that the new owners did not see him as a part of the club's plans. And, to be honest, I think it would be naive for anybody else to fail to come to what is, after all, a very logical conclusion.

I don't see any mention of the Thais asking for him to be removed.

[Webbo]

Why don't you just make it public for everyone to see?

 

All I've noticed you doing in the past few days following the sacking of Pearson (and I'm not the only one, judging by some of the input in this thread) is that you're simply raising further questions as an answer or coming up with counterquestions in a "Devil's Advocate" kind of way, without taking a proper stance. Well, you are fielding with the owners - but then again, I'm not sure if you're being serious at all.

 

Why all the passive-aggressive mockery of many people who are simply deeply affected by the loss of one of our best managers in the past ten to fifteen years?

(I may remind you of the recent poll results on here)

 

You're also deleting comments that could potentially put you in a wrong light pretty swiftly.

 

What are you up to lately, Webbo?

I'm not playing devils advocate and it's not mockery. I see people being abused, blamed and vilified on the basis of no evidence whatsoever and ridiculous speculation. I've also not deleted a single comment that disagrees with me and I resent the implication

[MC Prussian]

I'm not playing devils advocate. I see people being abused, blamed and vilified on the basis of no evidence whatsoever and ridiculous speculation. I've also not deleted a single comment that disagrees with me and I resent the implication

Whom is being abused and where are they being abused? How pertinent is the abuse you're talking about?

 

Why do you seemingly need to protect people's integrity when you've got no clue yourself what's been going on behind closed doors? Last time I checked, this was a more or less public forum with space for a healthy debate - including guesswork, assumptions and rumours. I've never seen you openly interact online as much as you've been doing for the past couple of days in the LCFC section. Why the sudden rise in interest or the need to act as an intermediary for the club?

 

As for the deleted comment bit, I'm particularly referring to another thread where I was replying to one of your comments that seeemed to me was mocking the current trend of lamenting (apparent with a large percentage of the regular users on here), calling for the tolerance of such comportment and the allowance of messages of support and the likes for Pearson.

The post disappeared rather quickly - alongside your initial reply. And you were the only moderator active that evening.

[Webbo]

Whom is being abused and where are they being abused? How pertinent is the abuse you're talking about?

 

Why do you need to protect people's integrity when you've got no clue yourself what's been going on behind closed doors? Last time I checked, this was a more or less public forum with space for a healthy debate - including guesswork, assumptions and rumours. I've never seen you openly interact online as much as you've been doing for the past couple of days. Why the sudden rise in interest or the need to act as an intermediate for the club?

 

As for the deleted comment bit, I'm particularly referring to another thread where I was replying to one of your comments that seeemed to me was mocking the current trend of lamenting (apparrent with a large percentage of the regular users on here), calling for the tolerance of such comportment and the allowance of messages of support and the likes for Pearson.

The post disappeared rather quickly - alongside your initial reply. And you were the only moderator active that evening.

Whatever your post was it wasn't deleted by me and I've just looked in the removed pile and there hasn't been a single post of yours removed today or yesterday so I suggest you look again.

 

Edit; I got back off holiday on the 5th and there hasn't been a single post of your deleted between then and now.

[Heymister2015]

Need to keep his back room staff! I remember Leicester wanting lewrondowski, ogbonna, Damian and Charlie Austin when at Swindon! Look at all of those players now ! Great talent spotter in Steve Walsh!

[hackneyfox]

Whom is being abused and where are they being abused? How pertinent is the abuse you're talking about?

 

 

Top and Vichai?

On here?

I hope they don't believe the outpourings of the last week are representative of how all Leicester fans truly feel.

 

Things will have calmed down in a week or so, I hope many find closure.