Pearson Sacked

[Far Post Gerry]

Get Over It!!

The owners are 100% right ..... Nigel was a RR disaster .... Not the kind of manager that a upwardly mobile team such as LCFC would have anything to do with. Get over it and move on !!!

Dear god. PR, upwardly mobile? We're Leicester City, not bleedin' Benetton. Rather have a good manager at the helm than some slick PR guy.

[inckley fox]

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

 

No, but you do see comments which affirm that the current owners, along with Mandaric and Sousa were all meeting before Pearson left, and that he 'knew what was going on'. Considering all of the speculation we've been subjected to, none of which is substantiated, I'd say that this is - by contrast - quite a concrete slab of evidence from a first hand witness. I mean, you would have to be staggeringly naive not to have come to the conclusions that Pearson clearly came to, if his claims are correct.

 

There is no evidence, on the other hand, that Pearson backed up his son, or committed any act of gross misconduct - though many of you seem to maintain that he did regardless - but on the other hand you're willing to overlook quite weighty evidence that they were complicit in him leaving the club in 2010, which led to our status as promotion challengers being set back by three years.

 

As for the sacking, the situation is very straightforward: No argument against Pearson with regard to the sacking can possibly hold weight because nobody has any evidence against him. So as far as the fans are concerned, a very successful manager - someone who has been associated with more success at this club than the board have - has been fired. There has been no explanation. They might be a wonderful board and it might turn out to be a wonderful decision, but based on what little we know it isn't. I'm amazed anybody is still arguing anything to the contrary, because there is simply nothing to back it up.

 

Except for faith, of course. In the owners as opposed to in Pearson, in this case. But instincts and personal convictions count for very little when it comes to arguing a point.

[inckley fox]

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.

 

Neither is there anything to suggest that it was done for unavoidable reasons. That's the nature of knowing nothing about something.

[inckley fox]

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.

 

You've massively missed the point here. People are critical because we've fired a successful manager which under normal circumstances would, in itself, be a bad decision. If an extremely strong reason - and it would have to be an extremely strong reason - for this were to be presented to justify it then people might well say 'okay, I can see why it might have been necessary.' But this hasn't happened yet. So, as it stands, it's just a bad decision. Maybe that will change if we go on to better things, or if a strong justification for the sacking is revealed, but it hasn't been.

 

The criticism of the decision doesn't stem from the fact that people believe that, in their own imagined scenario, Pearson has behaved impeccably and the board haven't. It stems from Pearson's exceptional record as a manager, and the fact that absolutely no justification for it coming to an end has been presented.

 

Nobody needs to speculate on how innocent Pearson might have been. He's been a great manager, his sacking is one which any sane fan would dearly have loved to avoid, and it has taken place without any evidence that it was unavoidable. Therefore, no argument in defence of his sacking - unless it's on the grounds that he wasn't actually a very good manager, or that there are plenty of better managers out there - can possibly make sense. Any such 'argument' would have to be based on faith in the board, but not in Pearson.

 

And you say we know a lot more about him than we do the board. Yes, naturally that's true. He's been our club's figurehead for a long time. Yet there is nothing in his 30+ year footballing career which has ever suggested he can't toe the line with his bosses. He was also - what? - the second or third longest serving manager in the division at the time of his exit, having repeatedly backed his owners in public throughout that time.

 

Yet I see no reason for the board to explain what they've done, not so long as the change in manager works out satisfactorily. But to see people backing that decision - either implicitly or explicitly - is ridiculous, because there's simply no reason out there for backing it, not yet. Other than, as I keep saying, a sense of faith which some fans have in the board, but not in Pearson. 

 

And if we hold Pearson's media scuffles against him, then surely we have to hold their three sackings in five years, their purported role in his first departure, maybe even the media accusations of their company's involvement in airport scams, or their close links to a king who is widely accused of suppressing democracy and human rights advances, against them. Just as we rightly credit them for their substantial investment in the club, their back-tracking on Pearson's appointment and their erstwhile support of him.

 

For my part, I see nothing exceptionally immoral in our owners, and I've broadly supported much of what they've done. But that, alone, isn't a justification for their sacking of Pearson.

[st albans fox]

You've massively missed the point here. People are critical because we've fired a successful manager which under normal circumstances would, in itself, be a bad decision. If an extremely strong reason - and it would have to be an extremely strong reason - for this were to be presented to justify it then people might well say 'okay, I can see why it might have been necessary.' But this hasn't happened yet. So, as it stands, it's just a bad decision. Maybe that will change if we go on to better things, or if a strong justification for the sacking is revealed, but it hasn't been.

 

The criticism of the decision doesn't stem from the fact that people believe that, in their own imagined scenario, Pearson has behaved impeccably and the board haven't. It stems from Pearson's exceptional record as a manager, and the fact that absolutely no justification for it coming to an end has been presented.

 

Nobody needs to speculate on how innocent Pearson might have been. He's been a great manager, his sacking is one which any sane fan would dearly have loved to avoid, and it has taken place without any evidence that it was unavoidable. Therefore, no argument in defence of his sacking - unless it's on the grounds that he wasn't actually a very good manager, or that there are plenty of better managers out there - can possibly make sense. Any such 'argument' would have to be based on faith in the board, but not in Pearson.

 

And you say we know a lot more about him than we do the board. Yes, naturally that's true. He's been our club's figurehead for a long time. Yet there is nothing in his 30+ year footballing career which has ever suggested he can't toe the line with his bosses. He was also - what? - the second or third longest serving manager in the division at the time of his exit, having repeatedly backed his owners in public throughout that time.

 

Yet I see no reason for the board to explain what they've done, not so long as the change in manager works out satisfactorily. But to see people backing that decision - either implicitly or explicitly - is ridiculous, because there's simply no reason out there for backing it, not yet. Other than, as I keep saying, a sense of faith which some fans have in the board, but not in Pearson. 

 

And if we hold Pearson's media scuffles against him, then surely we have to hold their three sackings in five years, their purported role in his first departure, maybe even the media accusations of their company's involvement in airport scams, or their close links to a king who is widely accused of suppressing democracy and human rights advances, against them. Just as we rightly credit them for their substantial investment in the club, their back-tracking on Pearson's appointment and their erstwhile support of him.

 

For my part, I see nothing exceptionally immoral in our owners, and I've broadly supported much of what they've done. But that, alone, isn't a justification for their sacking of Pearson.

That's pretty well reasoned HF. in the emotion of it all, too many are slaughtering the owners without knowing the facts. like you say, we just don't know. If it turns out to be a bad decision for the club (we get relegated), then we will all suffer but, funnily enough, we are used to going down - it's what we do. The owners would be the ones who suffer the most if they invest more in the squad over the next month half. Their investment in the club is more financial than emmotional. For us, it's the opposite. If they don't stick money in over the next six weeks and we go down, then we know that they were never prepared to take us to the next level and were using the PL windfall to extract the 100mill that they had stuck in. we will know exactly where we stand re pearsons sacking etc etc

If they pour funds in and we go down, then they made a terrible decision in disagreeing with pearsons perspectives.

As ever, 'the wirlygig of time will bring in its revenges'.

[Spaghetti]

The players seem okay in training (albeit only pictures) All other staff all remain. We had Kasabian come out and say they are delighted at Pearson being sacked. (They would obviously have met him)

It begs the question - was Pearson liked? Did something happen before where he was sacked and reinstated. He made the sudden move back to the dugout, Why didnt he continue in the stands. Was there a fallout with his staff I wonder. Maybe he wanted to bring new staff in and the club refused, choosing shakey and Walsh over him

[The Doctor]

Get Over It!!

The owners are 100% right ..... Nigel was a RR disaster .... Not the kind of manager that a upwardly mobile team such as LCFC would have anything to do with. Get over it and move on !!!

Sorry, does anyone actually think PR is more important that on field performance? Pretty daft suggestion.

[fox_favourite]

The players seem okay in training (albeit only pictures) All other staff all remain. We had Kasabian come out and say they are delighted at Pearson being sacked. (They would obviously have met him)

It begs the question - was Pearson liked? Did something happen before where he was sacked and reinstated. He made the sudden move back to the dugout, Why didnt he continue in the stands. Was there a fallout with his staff I wonder. Maybe he wanted to bring new staff in and the club refused, choosing shakey and Walsh over him

I very much doubt it. How do you explain our epic run out of relegation zone? If he had indeed "wasn't liked" then it would have been more obvious.

But would I will accept that the owners do like Shakey and Walsh as if they didn't, then they wouldn't be trusted with pre-season. On just a footballing side, I think we have one if the best setups around. Great recruitment and a backroom staff to challenge with the best. This is something I hope doesn't get ripped up and scrapped with a new man coming in.

[The Doctor]

The players seem okay in training (albeit only pictures) All other staff all remain. We had Kasabian come out and say they are delighted at Pearson being sacked. (They would obviously have met him)

It begs the question - was Pearson liked? Did something happen before where he was sacked and reinstated. He made the sudden move back to the dugout, Why didnt he continue in the stands. Was there a fallout with his staff I wonder. Maybe he wanted to bring new staff in and the club refused, choosing shakey and Walsh over him

Given most of his ex players and team mates that have talked about have nothing but praise for the man (only one I know to have criticised is Jimmy Bullard), it's a fair bet that he was liked...

[DEMANN]

Why do people need to be given further explanation as to why he was sacked?...The Club issued a statement...To expect them to expand on that is unlikely, as that sort of thing just doesn't happen...The working relationship between him and the board was no longer viable, so they got rid...That is all I need to know...I can get get my head around this without it giving me any concerns at all.

For those people baffled by his exit, and desperately searching for a reason, the Club dismissed his son...his own flesh and blood...Let that digest.

[Strokes]

Why do people need to be given further explanation as to why he was sacked?...The Club issued a statement...To expect them to expand on that is unlikely, as that sort of thing just doesn't happen...The working relationship between him and the board was no longer viable, so they got rid...That is all I need to know...I can get get my head around this without it giving me any concerns at all.

For those people baffled by his exit, and desperately searching for a reason, the Club dismissed his son...his own flesh and blood...Let that digest.

Thanks Denman I'm not sure where we would all be without your insight.

[MC Prussian]

Sorry, does anyone actually think PR is more important that on field performance? Pretty daft suggestion.

True. What more PR do you need than being able to secure safety in the Premier League as a newly-promoted team with one game to spare?

 

And yes, despite the struggles up until February/March, the Great Escape makes for great PL history. It's a achievement in itself that'll hardly ever be forgotten.

 

People all over the world have noticed and are now more aware of the club thanks to its sportive success.

[MC Prussian]

Why do people need to be given further explanation as to why he was sacked?...The Club issued a statement...To expect them to expand on that is unlikely, as that sort of thing just doesn't happen...The working relationship between him and the board was no longer viable, so they got rid...That is all I need to know...I can get get my head around this without it giving me any concerns at all.

For those people baffled by his exit, and desperately searching for a reason, the Club dismissed his son...his own flesh and blood...Let that digest.

Exactly. A statement.

 

When a large part of the fans (and the vultures that are the British media) expect an explanation for an exit that raises more questions than it answers.

All you do is repeat the official line, but you give nothing else away. A bit like a spokesperson for the club.

 

For all that it's worth, James Pearson should've never been at LCFC in the first place. But hindsight is a wonderful thing. Hopper might as well ahve taken another mate with him and Smith to Thailand and filmed that crap video, anyway.

[theessexfox]

I've been in Germany for two weeks, so have been quite far from all the goings on, but one thing that was clearly even from there is that this was the most bizarre/weird/utterly wrong decision in the history of professional sport. 

[Zorro]

True. What more PR do you need than being able to secure safety in the Premier League as a newly-promoted team with one game to spare?

 

And yes, despite the struggles up until February/March, the Great Escape makes for great PL history. It's a achievement in itself that'll hardly ever be forgotten.

 

People all over the world have noticed and are now more aware of the club thanks to its sportive success.

Yes and the high profile of LCFC due to it's sporting success also gave siginificant publicity to the disgusting vile behaviour of LCFC on tour.

 

It happened that the two were linked together all over the world. Great PR.

[EnglishOxide]

If last season we had beaten Sunderland (we would have done if we really needed the result let's be honest), and beaten Chelsea (may have happened but for Huth and James going off injured in the first 20 mins)...

We would have won 9 out of 9 instead of 7 out of 9.

Would Nigel still have been sacked? Would those who sympathise with the owners currently still hold the same position?

[DEMANN]

Exactly. A statement.

 

When a large part of the fans (and the vultures that are the British media) expect an explanation.

All you do is stretch the explanation, but you give nothing else away. A bit like a spokesperson for the club.

 

For all that it's worth, James Pearson should've never been at LCFC in the first place. But hindsight is a wonderful thing. Hopper might as well ahve taken another mate with him and Smith to Thailand and filmed that crap video, anyway.

It's the 'expect' bit that is getting my goat...Why should they explain?...Just to satisfy curiosity?...They aren't obliged to....Fans and media expecting too much.

[MC Prussian]

Yes and the high profile of LCFC due to it's sporting success also gave siginificant publicity to the disgusting vile behaviour of LCFC on tour.

 

It happened that the two were linked together all over the world. Great PR.

The story would've seen the light of the day regardless of our league position. The tabloids are suckers for that kind of material. Well played to the three "lads" involved, I have to say.

[MC Prussian]

It's the 'expect' bit that is getting my goat...Why should they explain?...Just to satisfy curiosity?...They aren't obliged to....Fans and media expecting too much.

Personally, it's the least we can expect, given the circumstances of the sacking of our most successful manager in ten, fifteen years. That following the first instance where he lost the job earlier this year, the sportive success he's managed to achieve with a squad that he assembled for most part and the kind of team spirit he's been able to instill and the winning run he pulled off towards the end of last season.

[st albans fox]

If last season we had beaten Sunderland (we would have done if we really needed the result let's be honest), and beaten Chelsea (may have happened but for Huth and James going off injured in the first 20 mins)...

We would have won 9 out of 9 instead of 7 out of 9.

Would Nigel still have been sacked? Would those who sympathise with the owners currently still hold the same position?

If my grandma was my uncle then ..............

However, I can assure you that had we won 38/38, he would still be in a job

[DEMANN]

Thanks Denman I'm not sure where we would all be without your insight.

Just simplifying things for the hard of understanding.

[Fox92]

Get Over It!!

The owners are 100% right ..... Nigel was a RR disaster .... Not the kind of manager that a upwardly mobile team such as LCFC would have anything to do with. Get over it and move on !!!

 

I take it you mean PR.

 

It's a good job Nottingham Forest didn't put PR ahead of on-field performances, Brian Clough would have been sacked as soon as he got the job.

[Chrysalis]

guys get over it, look forward he is now history.

[st albans fox]

I take it you mean PR.

 

It's a good job Nottingham Forest didn't put PR ahead of on-field performances, Brian Clough would have been sacked as soon as he got the job.

A loaf of bread was only 6 pence back then.

[Webbo]

No, but you do see comments which affirm that the current owners, along with Mandaric and Sousa were all meeting before Pearson left, and that he 'knew what was going on'. Considering all of the speculation we've been subjected to, none of which is substantiated, I'd say that this is - by contrast - quite a concrete slab of evidence from a first hand witness. I mean, you would have to be staggeringly naive not to have come to the conclusions that Pearson clearly came to, if his claims are correct.

 

There is no evidence, on the other hand, that Pearson backed up his son, or committed any act of gross misconduct - though many of you seem to maintain that he did regardless - but on the other hand you're willing to overlook quite weighty evidence that they were complicit in him leaving the club in 2010, which led to our status as promotion challengers being set back by three years.

 

As for the sacking, the situation is very straightforward: No argument against Pearson with regard to the sacking can possibly hold weight because nobody has any evidence against him. So as far as the fans are concerned, a very successful manager - someone who has been associated with more success at this club than the board have - has been fired. There has been no explanation. They might be a wonderful board and it might turn out to be a wonderful decision, but based on what little we know it isn't. I'm amazed anybody is still arguing anything to the contrary, because there is simply nothing to back it up.

 

Except for faith, of course. In the owners as opposed to in Pearson, in this case. But instincts and personal convictions count for very little when it comes to arguing a point.

To answer this and your other 3 essays;

 

You seem to be saying any assumptions that fit your theories are to be allowed but no other theory can be proved without evidence. You say there's no evidence that Pearson did anything wrong completely ignoring the obvious fact that he's been sacked, quite a large clue you'd think. They didn't sack him when he told a fan to FOAD nor when he was strangling an opposition player nor when we were bottom of the league for 5 months. If they always planned a hire a new manager they could have sacked at the end of the season.

 

 We're told that he's been sacked to protect King Power from what? If he was sacked simply because his son brought embarrassment on King Power then why wasn't he sacked at the same time as the players? Apparently he's been sacked for PR reasons because of an incident that nobody knows anything about and nobody would even be aware of if he hadn't been fired.

 

I don't know what he was sacked for but we all know what a stroppy cvnt he was. It doesn't take much imagination to think he's spat the dummy one too many times. When you're paying someone £1million+ a year I guess eventually you get fed up of walking on eggshells around them. Sometimes you have to say if you don't like it fvck off.

 

For all the efforts to intellectualise this we all know that people are just kicking out because they're disappointed that he's gone. I'm disappointed he's gone as well, I wish none of this had ever happened but it has. It's been nearly a fortnight now. It's time for a bit of grown up reflection and honesty.