Pearson Sacked

[Frank to be]

Making spurious and in some cases ridiculous claims like the owners being involved with Sousa or being connected to a "much-maligned monach" doesn't help your case.

I'm not sure what you're finding so difficult to understand about the concept of people weighing up the incomplete evidence and reaching different conclusions.

[MPH]

With regards to bob hazels shorts... I have come to the conclusion myself ( with no evidence to support this) that the remarkable turn around in our season, added with the fact that Pearson had seemingly escaped from a couple of incidences with his job intact, probably gave him ( in his own mind) a little bit more freedom to express himself and his feelings to the owners. When you factor in that Pearson has ALWAYS leapt to the defense of his players especially when he felt they were unjustly treated.. Well you can imagine what he would do if he felt his son was unfairly treated? It's also apparent that when Pearson is just being Pearson, a few swear words are going to come out. When you consider that our owners are used to mixing with the polo playing and high end business people of the English speaking world. Factor in that they also appear to be quite committed to their religion. Then it's quite possible that they were just not used to and even deeply offended by a very passionate Pearson defending someone he believes in.

[Webbo]

No, I'm not making assumptions. There is quite strong, detailed and first hand evidence that the owners were involved at the time of Pearson's first exit.

 

I'm not making any assumptions to back my argument up. I'm saying that we don't have much solid information, and that the information we do have isn't anywhere near sufficient to justify the sacking. Nor is it sufficient to suggest that the board have never put a foot wrong and that Pearson struggles to maintain professional relationships.

 

That doesn't mean that the sacking wasn't in some way justified, nor does it mean that it won't turn out to have been a good decision. But when people like yourself keep making assumptions, then writing abrasive messages accusing people of writing 'essays', talking 'b*******', needing to grow up or be more honest or trying but failing to 'intellectualise' the argument, it does make it necessary for people like me to keep pointing out how totally based on thin air your argument is.

 

When a judge hears a case for unfair dismissal, he doesn't look at the fact that a person was 'fired' as evidence, which is what you seem to think. An irreparable difference in perspective doesn't suggest Pearson being a 'stroppy c***' - as you say - nor does it suggest any incident of gross misconduct, as you've occasionally implied. We might suspect he's stroppy because of his media persona but, even if this is the case, that alone isn't going to be a sufficient reason for firing him. You are still having to use your imagination.

 

So without a strong case being presented against Pearson - which we'll probably never hear - we only have the facts to go on:

 

(1) Our board do have a close connection to a much-maligned monarch, they have fired three managers in five years, their other appointments haven't worked out and they were involved in the club at the time of Pearson's first exit - and he did suspect their involvement.

 

(2) They have also backed us up with excellent investment and made some very good decisions, especially where backing Pearson has been involved, and he himself believed that their 'integrity' should not be questioned.

 

(3) Pearson has established long-standing professional relationships as player and manager during a career of over 30 years in football. He has never been fired for gross misconduct.

 

(4) His public behaviour has not always been 100% professional, albeit in a profession where few managers' behaviour is 100% professional.

 

(5) He was extremely successful for our club, with and without this board, and was at the peak of his success at the time of our dismissal.

 

(6) No explanation has been given for the dismissal, as of yet, to point to gross misconduct, or a single incident which made his sacking unavoidable, as you claim.

 

(7) Six weeks of pre-season passed and various signings were made still under Pearson's reign, meaning that the timing for the sacking was - while not disastrous - not perfect either.

 

(8) A squad formed almost entirely by Pearson, consisting of players who have consistently expressed support for Pearson, has been left behind. And a manager who achieved year-on-year improvement has gone. 

 

In order to use these facts against Pearson a huge amount of joining-the-dots needs to take place. On the face of it, based on the facts, it's a decision which none of us should have wanted to happen. Based on the evidence we have, until we either continue to improve or a clear and convincing reason for the sacking comes out, the obvious sensible conclusion (made without any joining of dots whatsoever) is that it's not a good decision - simply because we don't yet have any reasons to conclude that it was a good decision.

 

To come to the opposite conclusion can only be because you don't trust in Pearson's professionalism, but do trust unfailingly in the board's. It becomes a matter of faith, but there are plenty of reasons out there to trust and distrust both the board and the ex-manager.

 

That might change. But we're not debating the Princes in the Tower here, there's plenty of hard evidence at hand, and it's nowhere near enough to establish Pearson's guilt. Neither does it establish the board's, but they made the decision to remove him and, without us either learning more or, alternatively, the club going on to much better things in the future, the sacking will remain inexplicable and open to criticism.

So the King of thailand ordered his sacking? That makes much more sense.

[Fox92]

It's amazing how people believe managers are good just because they have loads of money to spend. Why wasn't sven amazing in the championship for us then

 

Because he bought about 14 central midfielders.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

There HAS to be a reason / reasons, for the sacking of Pearson, so something obviously went on behind the scenes.

 

That is all we actually know., Conjecture isn't fact.  It can be discussed until the cows come home, but it is rather pointless really, although it passes the time I suppose.

[ImBlue]

Rodgers! Ha he's effing useless. Howe has never managed in the Premier League, so come on, back that one up? Pellegrini. I'd be a great manager too if I had a billion pound transfer budget every season. Hughes? Please. Pulis? What's he done other than keep teams up. The others, granted, but you have put some stinkers in that mix mate, especially Rodgers, he's hopeless. Gone by November. Watch.

Your dismissal of Hughes given what he has done at stoke is quite astonishing.

What has pulis done? I remember stoke playing Valencia in Europe, bit better than staying up that, even if you dismiss staying up as a bog standard feat.

As a poster above has said, you think Pearson is a better manager than Rodgers? Wow..

Pellegrini? A premier league winner, done wonders at Villarreal and managed Real Madrid before man city. That is just beyond belief.

You need to take them NP specs off because you are one of the most delusional NP disciples I have seen on here, and that's saying something..

[Corky]

You need to take them NP specs off because you are one of the most delusional NP disciples I have seen on here, and that's saying something..

 

Who are the others? Many are of the opinion that Pearson was doing a good job and could've taken us forward further as he's done so throughout his reign. Not that he's the best ever.

 

Pearson is overrated by some and underrated by others. He's not the irreplaceable genius, nor is he a clueless man. He's done a fine job in turning around a struggling club on and off the field and leaving with it in the Premier League. Our managers don't tend to do that, unfortunately. 

 

The club will move on and hopefully move forward. But I think his work will be appreciated more now he's left.

[foxinsocks]

The club will move on and hopefully move forward. But I think his work will be appreciated more now he's left.

We may well appreciate what NP did (now or in the future) - the squad was good enough to win the championship... (but it turned out that staying in the PL is harder - ask QPR and Burnley..)... and he did improve the squad (Ulloa, cambiasso & huth esp.. - let's see about Kramaric and now Okazaki)... and more importantly he addressed the defensive errors in the PL and found a way to win by being more counter attacking and creative (vardy, albrighton, Mahrez esp). He was learning too... and I believe he could have stabilised us. We appreciate all that. The other side of him was that he was stubborn (hence the time taken to sort stuff out) and worse... he was Gaff prone (don't need to list). In the end, for what ever reason he fell out with the owners and they decided they would rather be without him (...even given all his good points) - he will need to think about that (or at least his next employers will hope he has). So, you see we have to understand that he just couldn't carry on (as he did not have the confidence of his employers). As a fan I want a great manager - but not one that brings discord to the club. Let's se what the future brings and get behind it hoping that we can ALL(manager and owners AND fans) be on the same page.

[Wymsey]

If the club were to meet potential managers, who would actually be in these meetings (as 'LCFC' officials)?

 

I doubt the owners do it personally.

[Guest ttfn]

If the club were to meet potential managers, who would actually be in these meetings (as 'LCFC' officials)?

I doubt the owners do it personally.

It depends what stage it's at.

Back in the pre-Mandaric days interviews were initially conducted by somebody not employed by the club in order to get around rules about making approaches for other teams' managers. I'd imagine something similar happens in a first-round interview these days but the role of manager is so critical that I'm sure Whelan at the very least would be in the room.

[Finnaldo]

If the club were to meet potential managers, who would actually be in these meetings (as 'LCFC' officials)?

I doubt the owners do it personally.

Andrew Neville and Jon Rudkin are head of recruitment at the moment so likely them, as well as Susan Whelan likely, and possibly a couple others.

[inckley fox]

Making spurious and in some cases ridiculous claims like the owners being involved with Sousa or being connected to a "much-maligned monach" doesn't help your case.

I'm not sure what you're finding so difficult to understand about the concept of people weighing up the incomplete evidence and reaching different conclusions.

 

I can only imagine you didn't bother to read the two links I put up the other day to an interview with Pearson on October 2nd 2010, in which he said:

 

* The owners were shown around and involved in meetings while he was still at the club, but he wasn't notified so he 'knew what was going on'.

 

* Sousa was, at the same time, shown around the club and in attendance of the same games.

 

So no, these aren't assumptions - unlike people saying 'I bet he committed an act of gross misconduct, regardless of whether that's what he was fired for, because he's just that sort of guy'. Which was your argument, repeatedly, until you finally admitted that you knew absolutely nothing.

 

This, on the other hand, is first hand evidence from Pearson. If you consider it to be spurious then your problem is with Pearson and his own observations, and the conclusions he drew from them, not with me.

 

And, to be frank (no pun intended), reading that interview you'd have to be incredibly naive not to understand precisely what Pearson was saying. I'm sure his attitude towards the board changed a year later, just as I'm sure their attitude towards him changed. But his October 2010 interview is very clear, and on this forum at least there was never any question that he was being forced out of the club by Mandaric and Hoos, with the new owners informed of and involved in the proceedings.

 

You may well think the whole thing was made up by Pearson. But to accuse me of making spurious accusations is straightforwardly blinkered.

 

The point is that the pro-board / anti-Pearson argument seems to revolve around people saying that our board have always acted impeccably. They've fired three managers in less than five years and were in some capacity involved with edging out Pearson the first time round, which set our club back three years. The notion that they are men of unflinching dignity and loyalty, who have always done the right things for the club, should be questioned.

 

That doesn't mean they won't have made the right decision this time. It just means that you currently have no grounds whatsoever to be so certain that they have.

 

And the idea that it's 'spurious' to say that the Thai monarch is much-maligned, or that our board have been closely associated with him, is equally absurd. These are just facts. You can't ignore them purely because you don't like them.

 

I've had some superb debates with posters on this forum in the past, but they tend to be based on two people using real evidence to present opposing viewpoints. You, on the other hand, don't seem to grasp this fundamental principle. You have a spectacular capacity to both invent information at your own behest, and pour scorn on whatever real, demonstrable information there is to hand.

[Frank to be]

I can only imagine you didn't bother to read the two links I put up the other day to an interview with Pearson on October 2nd 2010, in which he said:

* The owners were shown around and involved in meetings while he was still at the club, but he wasn't notified so he 'knew what was going on'.

* Sousa was, at the same time, shown around the club and in attendance of the same games.

So no, these aren't assumptions - unlike people saying 'I bet he committed an act of gross misconduct, regardless of whether that's what he was fired for, because he's just that sort of guy'. Which was your argument, repeatedly, until you finally admitted that you knew absolutely nothing.

This, on the other hand, is first hand evidence from Pearson. If you consider it to be spurious then your problem is with Pearson and his own observations, and the conclusions he drew from them, not with me.

And, to be frank (no pun intended), reading that interview you'd have to be incredibly naive not to understand precisely what Pearson was saying. I'm sure his attitude towards the board changed a year later, just as I'm sure their attitude towards him changed. But his October 2010 interview is very clear, and on this forum at least there was never any question that he was being forced out of the club by Mandaric and Hoos, with the new owners informed of and involved in the proceedings.

You may well think the whole thing was made up by Pearson. But to accuse me of making spurious accusations is straightforwardly blinkered.

The point is that the pro-board / anti-Pearson argument seems to revolve around people saying that our board have always acted impeccably. They've fired three managers in less than five years and were in some capacity involved with edging out Pearson the first time round, which set our club back three years. The notion that they are men of unflinching dignity and loyalty, who have always done the right things for the club, should be questioned.

That doesn't mean they won't have made the right decision this time. It just means that you currently have no grounds whatsoever to be so certain that they have.

And the idea that it's 'spurious' to say that the Thai monarch is much-maligned, or that our board have been closely associated with him, is equally absurd. These are just facts. You can't ignore them purely because you don't like them.

I've had some superb debates with posters on this forum in the past, but they tend to be based on two people using real evidence to present opposing viewpoints. You, on the other hand, don't seem to grasp this fundamental principle. You have a spectacular capacity to both invent information at your own behest, and pour scorn on whatever real, demonstrable information there is to hand.

You're amazing, you really are.

I'll be brief.

There's no evidence that the current owners had anything to do with Nigel's decision to leave the club for Hull. Mandaric was the owner of the club at that time.

I'm not going to start debating the credibility of the Thai monarchy, except to say that to describe them as "much maligned" is beyond ignorant. Your use of the word "fact" there is an outright lie. But quite what that has to do with the sacking of Nigel Pearson at Leicester City I really don't know. It says a lot though that even though you're resorting to such a ludicrously tenuous link you still can't find any actual evidence of the owners wrongdoing.

If you'd allow me to use what is actually a considerably less tenuous link, I could point out the questionable behaviour of Nigel Pearson's very own son, but I won't, because unlike you I'm confident enough in my own argument not to have to go to such absurd lengths to try and prove my point.

[ronnup]

I've been to Thailand a few times and in my experience they bloody love the royal family.

[A fox for life]

Pearson what? What's going on I've been asleep

[inckley fox]

You're amazing, you really are.

I'll be brief.

There's no evidence that the current owners had anything to do with Nigel's decision to leave the club for Hull. Mandaric was the owner of the club at that time.

I'm not going to start debating the credibility of the Thai monarchy, except to say that to describe them as "much maligned" is beyond ignorant. Your use of the word "fact" there is an outright lie. But quite what that has to do with the sacking of Nigel Pearson at Leicester City I really don't know. It says a lot though that even though you're resorting to such a ludicrously tenuous link you still can't find any actual evidence of the owners wrongdoing.

If you'd allow me to use what is actually a considerably less tenuous link, I could point out the questionable behaviour of Nigel Pearson's very own son, but I won't, because unlike you I'm confident enough in my own argument not to have to go to such absurd lengths to try and prove my point.

 

There's plenty of evidence of corruption in the Thai Monarchy, and it's been much-maligned by Human Rights Watch for many years. The 2006 coup and the 2008 crisis both happened for a reason. If you consider all of this to be 'ignorant', then clearly your grasp of what ignorance is must be as loose as your grasp of what fact is. The board also have a clearly demonstrated association with them. It doesn't mean that our board hates democracy, or that they are corrupt and, in a world where actual wealth seldom reflects deserved wealth, it hardly matters anyway. But it's pointless denying the association all together.

 

The October 2010 interview link isn't tenuous. It explicitly states that while Pearson was in charge the new board, Sousa and Mandaric were all present at the club, and that he 'knew what was going on.' The implication is clear. Maybe you think Pearson was wrong to be suspicious, or that his implication is unclear and that maybe the board had no interest in managerial changes while their takeover was being finalised, but some might say that would be naive beyond comprehension.

 

And I'm not sure where James Pearson comes into this. If his father was sacked for what he did then that would be illegal.

 

I've been to Thailand a few times and in my experience they bloody love the royal family.

 

They have to. Article 112 and Lese Majeste make it illegal not to.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

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. 

   

[ARM1968]

All depends on the actual reasons. Something we may never actually know.

[Frank to be]

There's plenty of evidence of corruption in the Thai Monarchy, and it's been much-maligned by Human Rights Watch for many years. The 2006 coup and the 2008 crisis both happened for a reason. If you consider all of this to be 'ignorant', then clearly your grasp of what ignorance is must be as loose as your grasp of what fact is. The board also have a clearly demonstrated association with them. It doesn't mean that our board hates democracy, or that they are corrupt and, in a world where actual wealth seldom reflects deserved wealth, it hardly matters anyway. But it's pointless denying the association all together.

The October 2010 interview link isn't tenuous. It explicitly states that while Pearson was in charge the new board, Sousa and Mandaric were all present at the club, and that he 'knew what was going on.' The implication is clear. Maybe you think Pearson was wrong to be suspicious, or that his implication is unclear and that maybe the board had no interest in managerial changes while their takeover was being finalised, but some might say that would be naive beyond comprehension.

And I'm not sure where James Pearson comes into this. If his father was sacked for what he did then that would be illegal.

They have to. Article 112 and Lese Majeste make it illegal not to.

Pointless is bringing up our owners slight connection to royal involvement in the complex political situation in Thailand, blanketing the monarchy with the very debatable statement "much maligned" and then using that as 'evidence' that our owners were wrong to sack Nigel Pearson. Pointless is putting it nicely.

I've read both the links you provided earlier. The Independent link is particularly telling, an interview with the then chairman Milan Mandaric discussing the appointment of Sven, with the current owners nowhere to be seen. Pretty clear who was pulling the strings then, from there it's not a great leap to assume that it was also Mandaric pulling the strings while he still owned the club when Sousa was brought in.

Pearson's interview doesn't really tell us anything apart from the fact that he admits to not getting along with the board during mandarin's reign and evidently he didn't get along with this one either. Nor does he manage to get along with most of the media and his record at getting along with fans is also questionable.

This is a man who rubs people up the wrong way time and time and time again. So, with that in mind, when he eventually gets sacked, I suspect it was more than likely a case of him overstepping the mark.

[inckley fox]

Pointless is bringing up our owners slight connection to royal involvement in the complex political situation in Thailand, blanketing the monarchy with the very debatable statement "much maligned" and then using that as 'evidence' that our owners were wrong to sack Nigel Pearson. Pointless is putting it nicely.

 

 

Their slight connection? They received the royal warrant, then five years later their entire family was renamed by the king. I don't know whether their company name, and therefore our stadium's name, comes from that connection, but there's no doubt that the opponents to the king wanted them out of Bangkok airport in 2007. That's not to say that the king is a bad person, nor that they should be tarred with any of his criticisms, but the Thai monarchy has been very widely criticised, especially by human rights groups - rightly or wrongly I don't know, but that's what 'much-maligned' means - and they are firmly and proudly associated with this monarchy. Maybe they're right to be, maybe not, but they are.

 

And you're fully aware that I'm not using it to show that they were wrong to sack Pearson, but rather to indicate that - just as there are public criticisms of Pearson out there, from which you have formulated an entire theory and presented it as fact - there are also question marks which you could apply to our owners, both in terms of the climate in which their wealth was accumulated, and in terms of their management of the club. It's a perfectly reasonable point when some people have turned the debate into a 'who would you trust the most?' contest. Yourself included.

 

So if we're to assume that Pearson is to blame because of irrelevances such as his son, or how he speaks to men from the press, then why not ask questions about how our board made their money, or scandals which have involved them? I agree that it shouldn't be relevant, but only because we shouldn't be taking one thing (e.g. accusations of corruption against King Power and their close associates / Pearson's handling of the media) and using it to come to a set-in-stone conclusion about another (who is to blame for Pearson's sacking). If we do that, then I can find as many reasons to question the owners as you can to establish Pearson's incontrovertible guilt.

 

I've read both the links you provided earlier. The Independent link is particularly telling, an interview with the then chairman Milan Mandaric discussing the appointment of Sven, with the current owners nowhere to be seen. Pretty clear who was pulling the strings then, from there it's not a great leap to assume that it was also Mandaric pulling the strings while he still owned the club when Sousa was brought in.

 

 

You clearly didn't read beyond the first paragraph of the Independent link then. It discusses the new owners and the fact that they had bought Mandaric out back in the summer, it also includes an extract from the same October 2nd interview with Pearson in which he says that Sousa was present at the two play-off games and 'that tells you something'. If you read other extracts from the interview, in the BBC link, it will tell you that the owners were also present at the club at the time.

 

Pearson's interview doesn't really tell us anything apart from the fact that he admits to not getting along with the board during mandarin's reign and evidently he didn't get along with this one either. Nor does he manage to get along with most of the media and his record at getting along with fans is also questionable.

This is a man who rubs people up the wrong way time and time and time again. So, with that in mind, when he eventually gets sacked, I suspect it was more than likely a case of him overstepping the mark.

 

Not for the first time, we get to the bottom of your argument. You think he was to blame for getting the sack because of his media persona, because he 'rubs people up the wrong way', including the fans. Well, the last poll I saw had 84% of them against the sacking of Pearson, so he's clearly not upset us too badly. As for the media - why should we care whether he gets on with them or not? Many reporters speak well of him, others don't. But the same goes for everybody from Clough to Ferguson, it's hardly a valid criticism of a good manager.

[hackneyfox]

Is that 84% of fans on here?

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Watching Inckley have Franks pants down over and over again is somehow rather enjoyable, you'd think Frank would just pack in replying.

[st albans fox]

Is that 84% of fans on here?

Which side do abstentions go?

[Carl the Llama]

Is that 84% of fans on here?

84% of the largest online LCFC community should be fairly representative of where the fanbase stands as a whole, especially moving forward as the non-computer-literate fans die out..

[Webbo]

Watching Inckley have Franks pants down over and over again is somehow rather enjoyable, you'd think Frank would just pack in replying.

You reckon? You think because the owners know the Thai King that proves they sacked Pearson for no reason at all?

The longer inkley goes on the more bizarre his theories become. I can only assume people are only skim reading his really long posts.