Pearson Sacked

[inckley fox]

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.

 

And there, finally, is the point that you've been missing. When you speculate that he deserved to be fired, all you're doing is speculating. It isn't actually what happened.

 

What happened, up to now, is that we fired a very competent and successful manager. Somebody who had already led Leicester up 20 of the 31 league placings they've risen since 2008 before the current board materialised. They fired him, and did so without so far backing it up with a reason. And that alone, on the face of it, doesn't look like the greatest of decisions.

 

But it could turn out to be the right decision. Some of the other decisions they've made haven't: If Pearson is to be believed then they played a part in his exit (and yes there is evidence which backs this up - whether it's right or not - as opposed to a succession of assumptions and guesses), and Sousa's arrival; they appointed Sven and backed him with largely wasted funds. Other decisions turned out well - mainly the ones where they appointed, stuck by and financially backed Pearson.

 

Of course I desperately want it to be the right decision, but if they got it wrong - and their track record to date makes that a possibility - then they would have to live with the criticism, which would extend way beyond Foxestalk. But, much like your guesses and speculation relating to Pearson's departure, we don't know which of the two will prove to be the case.

[Frank to be]

And there, finally, is the point that you've been missing. When you speculate that he deserved to be fired, all you're doing is speculating. It isn't actually what happened.

What happened, up to now, is that we fired a very competent and successful manager. Somebody who had already led Leicester up 20 of the 31 league placings they've risen since 2008 before the current board materialised. They fired him, and did so without so far backing it up with a reason. And that alone, on the face of it, doesn't look like the greatest of decisions.

But it could turn out to be the right decision. Some of the other decisions they've made haven't: If Pearson is to be believed then they played a part in his exit (and yes there is evidence which backs this up - whether it's right or not - as opposed to a succession of assumptions and guesses), and Sousa's arrival; they appointed Sven and backed him with largely wasted funds. Other decisions turned out well - mainly the ones where they appointed, stuck by and financially backed Pearson.

Of course I desperately want it to be the right decision, but if they got it wrong - and their track record to date makes that a possibility - then they would have to live with the criticism, which would extend way beyond Foxestalk. But, much like your guesses and speculation relating to Pearson's departure, we don't know which of the two will prove to be the case.

I don't feel as though I've ever made any secret of the fact that I'm assuming the best case scenario. My issue has been with people assuming the worst and in doing so lambasting owners who have been good for us in general.

I do think the owners have shown qualities that would suggest there is a good reason for the sacking. I'm struggling to think of anything especially awful that they've done. A couple of early managerial glitches, themselves hardly the most obvious of mistakes (except in hindsight) and plain sailing ever since.

Maybe I'm just unrealistically positive, but when people who have been strongly resistant to sacking a manager for years despite several very good opportunities, when they suddenly do sack him I'm inclined to think it's for a pretty damn good reason and in the absence of any evidence either way, that's what I've chosen to believe.

[Webbo]

When the Thailand scandal happened 99% of people on here wanted instant dismissal, no exceptions. When somebody said it'd be different if they were first teamers we were told no definitely not, so sure we were in our moral fortitude. Now we're told we can't sack Pearson because he's been such a good manager for us.

The majority on here seem content to speculate on how it's all the owners fault but apparently it's not fair to speculate on how it might be Pearsons fault, even though we know a lot more of his personality than the Thais.

Even if we're relegated at the end of the season it doesn't mean it's the wrong decision.

[Alf Bentley]

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?

 

 

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.

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.

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.

 

 

The majority on here seem content to speculate on how it's all the owners fault but apparently it's not fair to speculate on how it might be Pearsons fault, even though we know a lot more of his personality than the Thais.

 

 

Webbo, the last time you made this false claim, at least 3 of us responded more than adequately (see above). So, why are you repeating this false claim?

[Alf Bentley]

When the Thailand scandal happened 99% of people on here wanted instant dismissal, no exceptions. When somebody said it'd be different if they were first teamers we were told no definitely not, so sure we were in our moral fortitude. Now we're told we can't sack Pearson because he's been such a good manager for us.

 

 

This is a more reasonable point. I still think it was right to sack the Bang-Cock 3: 1 for public racism and the others for bringing the club into public disrepute by allowing that video to enter the public domain. If it had been 3 first-teamers, they also should have been sacked. Whether that would have happened, I don't know.

 

If Pearson has done something of equivalent seriousness, then the sacking would be justified. But we're told that he was sacked for unspecified "fundamental differences in perspective", not "gross misconduct" or anything similar. If it's the latter, we should be told. If it's the former, the general nature of the "fundamental differences" should be explained. If they relate to footballing issues or PR gaffes, I'd continue to oppose his sacking. If some much more serious indiscipline, I'd regretfully support it.

[Webbo]

Webbo, the last time you made this false claim, at least 3 of us responded more than adequately (see above). So, why are you repeating this false claim?

There are more than 3 people on here.

I see a lot of hypocrisy on here, a lot of unwarranted accusations and I feel somebody ought to point out the alternative and imo the more obvious scenario.

[dave_the_fox]

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!

He was with Ranieri at Chelsea so hopefully they were the best of friends !!

If the tinker man gets the job anyway! !

[Alf Bentley]

There are more than 3 people on here.

I see a lot of hypocrisy on here, a lot of unwarranted accusations and I feel somebody ought to point out the alternative and imo the more obvious scenario.

 

 

I'm sure there's the (very) odd person who'd support Pearson even if he started a nuclear war - and the (very) odd person who'd oppose him even if he secured permanent global peace.

 

The fact remains that you asked if "any...Pearson obsessives" accepted that NP might be partly to blame. At least 3 of us ignored your gratuitous insult and replied that we did accept that possibility. As far as I'm aware, nobody responded to say that it was impossible. Yet your response is to comment that "the majority on here" speculate that it was the owners' fault but don't accept any speculation that it might have been Pearson's.

 

A lot of the "unwarranted accusations" could have been avoided if the owners had given the fans some proper idea of why they'd sacked a (mainly) popular and hitherto highly successful manager. In the absence of any meaningful explanation, we'll have to agree to disagree over what the "obvious scenario" is. To me, NP committing an unspecified outrage is a possible scenario, ongoing disputes somewhat more likely - and possibly disputes about footballing/transfer strategy as much as his son. Or maybe they judged that NP couldn't take us any further. Nobody knows, which is wrong in itself.

 

As for hypocrisy, if you want to avoid that, you'd better leave the Earth on Branson's first shuttle to Mars! 

 

Ah, well! There are more important things in life, so no point in going round in circles or generating any ill-feeling. May you have a good day, Sir! 

[Fox Ulike]

There are more than 3 people on here.

I see a lot of hypocrisy on here, a lot of unwarranted accusations and I feel somebody ought to point out the alternative and imo the more obvious scenario.

 

I think you are totally missing the point.

 

Most people on here don’t CARE what the reason is if, as has been widely reported, it’s not for what has happened on the pitch.

 

Given that for the last quarter of the Premiership season we were the most successful team in the Premiership, ahead of Chelsea and Man City, it’s unlikely that Pearson has been given the boot for his results.

 

If he disagrees with the transfer policy, I don’t care. If he disagrees with his son’s sacking, I don’t care. If he’s called Vichai an asshooole, I don’t care. If he crashed his car into the bridge, I DON’T CARE!!

 

Do you geddit?

 

A lot of Leicester fans on here believe that the manager should be judged on events on the pitch. The fact that he appears to have been sacked for events relating to King Power’s global reputation, and not LCFC, is what is wrong.

 

Very few people are actually lambasting the owners. I’m certainly not. People are lambasting fans like yourself who are sucking-up to the owners even though they are acting in the best interests of King Power and not LCFC. (This is not in doubt, it’s only that you refuse to acknowledge it.

[Rincewind]

Can't people just accept that there were difference of opinion on which direction was going and this could involve several things.

If Pearson disagreed with every decision the owners  made it is obvious that at some point something will snap. Maybe his son was in the back of his mind and snapped with 'back me or sack me'

Pearson liked to be the one in charge so disagreements were inevitable. Even though the team did well we do not know how many disagreements there were or whether there were ongoing. Pearson is a down to earth type bloke who defends and protects his players not a businessman.

That  is what I read into the sacking and even though I am not happy about it I will accept that  a combination of events may have brought it on so no one reason can be given hence the response given by the owners.

[inckley fox]

As fans it's inevitable that our number one priority, by far, should be success on the pitch. If we became the biggest club in the nation but were morally crucified - like Real Madrid for the way in which they were actively supported by Franco, or Lazio for their own links with Fascism - then our fanbase would continue to grow. Okay, I'd find strong links with fascism thoroughly unpalatable and might choose to stop supporting, but my little protest would be dwarfed by the reaction of other fans, new and old.

 

Conversely, any club's financial situation might worry its fans - especially when it endangers our success on their pitch, or us even having a pitch to enjoy success on - but if we can overcome it and continue to be very successful in the process, then fans needn't be too fussed about how or when the bills were paid. Neither should they be too worried about the manager who delivers the success, so long as it's delivered. These things become a problem only when they get in the way of that - and they do tend to - but these matters alone don't dictate what's right and wrong for the club.

 

So it's natural that Leicester fans are critical when somebody who delivers success on the pitch - something for which managers almost always receive greater credit than chairmen, be it at Real, Barcelona, Manchester United or Chelsea - is removed, not because who the manager is is important, but because it doesn't naturally concern fans whether Pearson got drunk on a pre-season trip, or is too pally with the players, or tends to get up the owners' noses. Footballing success is the overwhelming priority.

 

And it will ultimately determine how successful this board, and the next manager, are too. Not how hard they tried to make it work, be it by putting in loads of office hours, pandering or not pandering to the fans, investing loads of money and so on, but in terms of how the club progresses in the league.

 

This change could work out for the better, in which case they'll be forgiven even if they were horrid and unfair to Pearson when they fired him. If it doesn't, then regardless of how awkward and unreasonable he might have been, they probably won't be.

 

But our judgements, as fans, aren't and shouldn't be based on rumoured behind-the-scenes exchanges. We had a manager who has delivered success, he has gone, and there is no clear reason as to why he's gone - other than a handful of such rumours of behind-the-scenes difficulties. Even if we come to learn what those difficulties were, it will still appear to be the wrong decision unless it brings us success on the pitch.

 

All of which makes it very strange to hear some people defending the decision not because it has a good chance of leading to greater success than we might have been able to expect under Pearson, but rather because there was probably some very good reason for it which we'd all understand if it came to light (which it hasn't). And, if we want to worry about whatever the reason is, the great moral issue which might - for some - take priority over success on the field, then we're not talking about Fascism (though our board do have strong links with a king who is accused of suppressing democracy and human rights), nor are we talking about an act of gross misconduct, the likes of which might elicit a little sympathy for them. Instead we're wondering about whether Pearson agreed with them about football, or a sordid little saga in a Thai hotel room.

 

From a fan's perspective, it all sounds massively irrelevant. But even if we found out what happened - which would be nice if only so we could have an equally irrelevant conversation about the morals of it all - it wouldn't change the fact that Pearson delivered success on the field, with and without these owners, whereas their other managers didn't. They will have to find someone else who can do that if they ultimately want their decision to be looked upon favourably.

[Fox Ulike]

Can't people just accept that there were difference of opinion on which direction was going and this could involve several things.

If Pearson disagreed with every decision the owners  made it is obvious that at some point something will snap. Maybe his son was in the back of his mind and snapped with 'back me or sack me'

Pearson liked to be the one in charge so disagreements were inevitable. Even though the team did well we do not know how many disagreements there were or whether there were ongoing. Pearson is a down to earth type bloke who defends and protects his players not a businessman.

That  is what I read into the sacking and even though I am not happy about it I will accept that  a combination of events may have brought it on so no one reason can be given hence the response given by the owners.

 

No!

 

The only cause to sack Pearson would be if he publically disagreed with the owners. Then I could accept that there was a case for dismissal.

 

As I keep saying, the real problem here is that it is King Power who have sacked Pearson, not LCFC.

[midland_red]

Spot on Inckley....

[Webbo]

I'm sure there's the (very) odd person who'd support Pearson even if he started a nuclear war - and the (very) odd person who'd oppose him even if he secured permanent global peace.

 

The fact remains that you asked if "any...Pearson obsessives" accepted that NP might be partly to blame. At least 3 of us ignored your gratuitous insult and replied that we did accept that possibility. As far as I'm aware, nobody responded to say that it was impossible. Yet your response is to comment that "the majority on here" speculate that it was the owners' fault but don't accept any speculation that it might have been Pearson's.

 

A lot of the "unwarranted accusations" could have been avoided if the owners had given the fans some proper idea of why they'd sacked a (mainly) popular and hitherto highly successful manager. In the absence of any meaningful explanation, we'll have to agree to disagree over what the "obvious scenario" is. To me, NP committing an unspecified outrage is a possible scenario, ongoing disputes somewhat more likely - and possibly disputes about footballing/transfer strategy as much as his son. Or maybe they judged that NP couldn't take us any further. Nobody knows, which is wrong in itself.

 

As for hypocrisy, if you want to avoid that, you'd better leave the Earth on Branson's first shuttle to Mars! 

 

Ah, well! There are more important things in life, so no point in going round in circles or generating any ill-feeling. May you have a good day, Sir! 

I don't know why you're taking it personally, I've not singled out any individual and I certainly didn't have you in mind when I've made my comments.

 

With the owners not making any statement, they are not only (probably) following legal advice they are also not directly blaming Pearson, the decent thing to do I would think.

[MPH]

I cant get the image out of my head of Big Nige sitting in his armchair drinking a cuppa tea on his own staring at some white trainers that are sat by the door.

 

 

 

[Webbo]

I think you are totally missing the point.

 

Most people on here don’t CARE what the reason is if, as has been widely reported, it’s not for what has happened on the pitch.

 

Given that for the last quarter of the Premiership season we were the most successful team in the Premiership, ahead of Chelsea and Man City, it’s unlikely that Pearson has been given the boot for his results.

 

If he disagrees with the transfer policy, I don’t care. If he disagrees with his son’s sacking, 

 

I totally get it, I've known that was the reason from the start. that's why I've found the ridiculous accusations against the owners so tiresome.

 

I wish I could be bothered to find the thailand incident thread to see what your reaction was at the time. It seems a lot of people have turned from moral outrage, sack them at once to so what? Kind of hypocritical don't you think? 

 

 

 

 People are lambasting fans like yourself who are sucking-up to the owners even though they are acting in the best interests of King Power and not LCFC. (This is not in doubt, it’s only that you refuse to acknowledge it.

 

 

 

 

Pearson's spat the dummy once to often making it impossible to work with him and that's just done to protect the King Power brand? This is the kind of ridiculous conspiracy theory I'm arguing against.

[MPH]

[Webbo]

No!

 

The only cause to sack Pearson would be if he publically disagreed with the owners. Then I could accept that there was a case for dismissal.

 

As I keep saying, the real problem here is that it is King Power who have sacked Pearson, not LCFC.

Nobody knows why he was sacked, even now the incident has not become public. In what way has sacking him protected the King Power Brand?

[ARM1968]

Doubt we'll know anytime soon with potential legal proceedings. I imagine that will be settled out of court.

Probably find out in 4-5 years.

[Alf Bentley]

I don't know why you're taking it personally, I've not singled out any individual and I certainly didn't have you in mind when I've made my comments.

 

 

I'm not taking it personally at all, Webbo, just arguing my case because I'm an argumentative bastard. Just think of me as a mirror image of yourself! 

[EGBFitness]

It's amazing to see all the support for Pearson and hate towards our owners.

There is a lot more to the clubs on goings than on a football pitch and within the public eye. I'm sure when/if the truth comes out then people's opinions may change.

If the owners was close to sacking Pearson during the season and didn't go through with it only then to do it months later shows that something has obviously strained relationships.

It's amazing to see all the support for Pearson and hate towards our owners.

There is a lot more to the clubs on goings than on a football pitch and within the public eye. I'm sure when/if the truth comes out then people's opinions may change.

If the owners was close to sacking Pearson during the season and didn't go through with it only then to do it months later shows that something has obviously strained relationships.

[Guest Col city fan]

Gotta agree with Webbo here.

We still don't know why (exactly) Pearson got the sack. We can all speculate but as yet, there's no definitive.

Two points for me. Firstly, running (and owning) a football club in the modern age IS more than just results on the pitch. Like it or not, it's also about reputation, public perception and marketing.

Secondly...I thought it was only a couple or three weeks ago that we had the best owners in the world? Weren't there threads praising them to the hilt? Now we've had many many many posts criticising them, belittling them and more.

That doesn't sit right. I still feel they are great owners, have been good to the club and probably had to do what they felt was the best for the club.

As Webbo said, they probably did what they felt was best for the club at this present time even if it results in a downturn in our on - field fortunes.

Which it might or might not.

[cc_star]

Gotta agree with Webbo here.

We still don't know why (exactly) Pearson got the sack. We can all speculate but as yet, there's no definitive.

Two points for me. Firstly, running (and owning) a football club in the modern age IS more than just results on the pitch. Like it or not, it's also about reputation, public perception and marketing.

Secondly...I thought it was only a couple or three weeks ago that we had the best owners in the world? Weren't there threads praising them to the hilt? Now we've had many many many posts criticising them, belittling them and more.

That doesn't sit right. I still feel they are great owners, have been good to the club and probably had to do what they felt was the best for the club.

As Webbo said, they probably did what they felt was best for the club at this present time even if it results in a downturn in our on - field fortunes.

Which it might or might not.

 

Right for King Power is not necessarily what's right for the club, if it is then we've become what many fear

 

Now whether the many reasons Pearson could have been sacked for actually got him the sack, or the availability of Hiddink was what did for him, we'll never know for sure, but we'll kinda know.

[Webbo]

Right for King Power is not necessarily what's right for the club

In what way? If they hadn't sacked him we wouldn't have even known anything had gone off.

[Webbo]

 

 

Now whether the many reasons Pearson could have been sacked for actually got him the sack, or the availability of Hiddink was what did for him, we'll never know for sure, but we'll kinda know.

If that was the actual case don't you think they would have sounded him out in private before they sacked Pearson?