Clever Fox Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 One thing is sure whatever club he ends up at will be in for better times. You cannot deny he knows how to run a club properly. I personally feel the Owners were hasty and should have sat down around a table and trashed out their differences. Using a mediator if needed, After all they both wanted what was in the best of the Club.
Bluetintedspecs Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Wow there's some tetchy folk around.Some very lengthy and well constructed posts. Can someone please give me a BRIEF preci of what we've learned?
Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Wow there's some tetchy folk around.Some very lengthy and well constructed posts. Can someone please give me a BRIEF preci of what we've learned? Pearson got sacked.
maynefox Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 I am genuinely surprised it's taken this long to get someone in. Someone in a bar I went to mentioned Paul Jewell would be worth a shout... Sounds like the start of a joke!
Guest Col city fan Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Wow there's some tetchy folk around.Some very lengthy and well constructed posts. Can someone please give me a BRIEF preci of what we've learned? Eh up bud! Précis? We've learnt just about zero. Just a lot of hypothesising. Hope that helps...
Frank to be Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Bruno Berner, Chris Powell, and plenty of others have given Pearson vast amounts of praise since leaving. Not following the discussion but if you're talking about Pearson still you must have an incredible hatred of the man to keep coming out with this nonsense. He did a shitload for your football club, the correct way to thank him is not to criticize him any time the opportunity arises. Everyone gets that you don't like him, but trying to diminish his achievements makes you look like a crackpot who cares more about being right than the football club you support. Not really sure how you've read that as a criticism of Pearson. It was just a general point that people in football tend to play lip service to each other as a matter of routine.
Mike Oxlong Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Not if they're competent. A good journalist is perfectly capable of getting a lot out of Nigel Pearson, and will likely see the club they cover get added exposure as a result of their improving league position. I imagine any radio reporter worth their salt would be hoping he does. I think he's quite happy for the odd Henry Winter type piece but not with the weekly grind of having to deal with local radio. The BBC reporter at Hull has sounded pretty competent when he's been on RL but I don't think he considered that he ever got a lot out of Nigel.
sylofox Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 One thing is sure whatever club he ends up at will be in for better times. You cannot deny he knows how to run a club properly. I personally feel the Owners were hasty and should have sat down around a table and trashed out their differences. Using a mediator if needed, After all they both wanted what was in the best of the Club. How do you know they did not try. Do you know what was said. How do you judge either side when we know fvck all about what happened. Is it just blind love for Nige and no I am not anti Nige.
Bluetintedspecs Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Eh up bud! Précis? We've learnt just about zero. Just a lot of hypothesising. Hope that helps...
Bluetintedspecs Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Eh up pal. As I suspected, always good for a bitch fest
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Players and staff speaking highly of a manager doesn't really mean anything. 90% of what footballers say to the media is just a string of meaningless platitudes they've been taught in media training. It's a very, very rare scenario that any player at any club will publicly criticise the manager and clearly not every manager is the Messiah. Talking to players and staff, off the record, they all spoke (and indeed still speak) very highly of him. Up and down the country local radio reporters are shitting it that he'll get the gig at the club they cover Absolute rubbish.
Mike Oxlong Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Absolute rubbish. Calm down Right Said Geoff No need to get Deeply Dippy
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Calm down Right Said Geoff No need to get Deeply Dippy Oooooh, love it when people you don't know get personal
st albans fox Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Oooooh, love it when people you don't know get personal How do you know that you don't know him Geoff?
Mike Oxlong Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Oooooh, love it when people you don't know get personal No problem son
Bluetintedspecs Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Talking to players and staff, off the record, they all spoke (and indeed still speak) very highly of him. Absolute rubbish.
inckley fox Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 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. And here's the problem with your argument, again and again and again. You haven't even read the whole of the first paragraph of the post you're referring to. If you had then you'd know full well that this isn't what I was saying, not even remotely. And I'm pleased to see that plenty of other people have pointed that out to you. Which means you're either staggeringly ignorant, not very clever, or just trying to be difficult because your argument is utterly groundless. Well, I've read plenty of your posts in the past and I certainly don't consider you either ignorant or stupid, so I'm placing my bet on the latter of the three. I'm fully aware of how patronising this seems, and would normally apologise in advance for it. But if you insist on misrepresenting people's opinions then I'm afraid you deserve it.
Hack Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 I still think this dates back to MacArthur and the photo of him, Nigel's hands clasped around his neck, which was flashed around the world. I don't think vichai ever accepted thereafter that NP could remain as the custodian of the football club, the public face. Top disagreed and Nigel kept his job. the rumour that the back room staff refused to take charge and no one else suitable was available may have helped Top's position. Had there been no more incidents, perhaps Top could have convinced his father that NP should keep his post. But there were the two press conferences (**** and ostrich) and finally the Bangkok affair. I think Top ran out of excuses to stand up for him. if we don't appoint someone this week then it would seem that the board were not expecting to make the decision and therefore, something else arose to accelerate things. If we do appoint someone, then it's feasible that enquiries had been underway for some time and suitable candidates identified and sounded out. What's clear is that we aren't going to be rushed to an announcement. Pearson had created a fantastic team spirit and ethic. The players always offered staunch support for him in public. However, knowing the strong character that he is, I suspect you would do this. The comment always that the manager hadn't lost the players and that they were clearly playing for him. What about the possibility that they were playing for each other, due to that team spitrit? (That he was responsible for creating). There is a part of me that wonders if the players were a bit 'scared' of him and if they will now be more relaxed. I certainly wouldn't want to get the wrong side of him! Clearly the time that has already passed should convince people that this was not premeditated and came out of the blue. We can all speculate why, but the most obvious reason would be "ThaiGate". Yes there could be other reasons but If I was a betting man that is what i would pick. NP probably came back to work had a discussion about the way things were handled with the 3 players and it blew up and that was that. Since then the club would have to first batten down the hatches and make sure Players and their agents were informed and made to feel ok about things at the club and the same for the staff. Then would have to start the hunt for a replacement, approach them interview them and eventually employee the winner. That is about where we are now. Anyone thinking this was predetermined to 30 June is just making argument for the sake of it as they still can't and won't accept that this happened.
Webbo Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 And here's the problem with your argument, again and again and again. You haven't even read the whole of the first paragraph of the post you're referring to. If you had then you'd know full well that this isn't what I was saying, not even remotely. And I'm pleased to see that plenty of other people have pointed that out to you. Which means you're either staggeringly ignorant, not very clever, or just trying to be difficult because your argument is utterly groundless. Well, I've read plenty of your posts in the past and I certainly don't consider you either ignorant or stupid, so I'm placing my bet on the latter of the three. I'm fully aware of how patronising this seems, and would normally apologise in advance for it. But if you insist on misrepresenting people's opinions then I'm afraid you deserve it. Don't apologise, I honestly couldn't care less. Your point seems to be that the Owners know the King, so what? What does that prove?
Edmund Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 And I'm pleased to see that plenty of other people have pointed that out to you. Which means you're either staggeringly ignorant, not very clever, or just trying to be difficult because your argument is utterly groundless.Haha this place never changes.Lots of knickers getting twisted!
Webbo Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Haha this place never changes. Lots of knickers getting twisted! Where have you been all this time ?
Edmund Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Where have you been all this time ? Untwisting all of my knickers!
inckley fox Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 I'm going to pre-empt this by saying that I've been very ready to criticise Pearson in the past. But he has been one of our best ever managers, and was successful with and without the support of this board. He took us from the third tier to the Premier League and kept us there. He was fired at the peak of his success. To my mind, if that sacking is to be justified by any Leicester City fan then there needs to be a very good reason. To date none has been given. If you're unfortunate enough to come into this without reading our previous exchanges, then I'm sorry because a great deal of it must seem totally irrelevant. I've had a look through the Human Rights Watch pages and at no point is the Monarchy 'maligned'. Plenty of criticism of the political situation, sure, but nothing about the king. The king of Thailand is actually highly revered, and not because of lese majeste. Having lived there for several years, I could write about the complexities of that situation at length, but frankly I don't see the point. I'm sure the owners have benefitted to some degree from their royal connection. What this has to do with Nigel Pearson I still don't know. Might I remind you that you actually brought up this ridiculous line of inquiry as supposed evidence that Pearson was incorrectly fired. Now you're backing away from that i'm more than happy to move on. If you Google 'human rights Thai Monarchy' then this, from Human Rights Watch, is the first article. If you don't think it criticises the monarchy then I can only assume that you either didn't read beyond the first paragraph (again) or didn't learn what 'lese majeste' meant during your 'several years' living there. A criticism of 'lese majeste' is clearly a criticism of the monarchy. May I kindly suggest that you do this kind of research for yourself in the future. https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/05/22/thailand-deepening-repression-one-year-after-coup As far as I'm aware the only 'scandal' King Power has been involved in was when some shop floor staff ran some small value scams at a shop on their premises at one of the airports. King Power is a very large business, over 7,000 direct employees (and thousands more working in shops in King Power complexes). The owners are billionaires. If you really think Top and Vichai had anything to do with trying to scam a few tourists out of a few thousand baht then I don't know what to say other than you're being ridiculous, again. You mean this one? The one that caused the British Embassy to issue a warning about their alleged airport 'scam' which led to numerous foreigners being arrested? Again, if it's 'ridiculous' then your issue isn't with me, but the British government. http://phuketwan.com/tourism/airport-scam-duty-free-store-declares-innocence-11366/ There's also the minor matter of the Board of Airports of Thailand trying to have them shut down in 2007. Like I keep saying, none of this really matters unless you are trying to compare the trustworthiness of the owners with that of Pearson. Which is what you keep doing. Personally I couldn't care less about the 'morality-off' you keep proposing (but if you insist!). Some have suggested that you're involved with King Power. In fact I'd go out on a limb and say that's improbable, because any employee would know how damaging the type of nonsense you've been printing could be should Pearson's lawyers get wind of any connection. I'd guess that you're a bright guy who likes the board - and I can fully understand why you would - but doesn't like losing an argument. I'd say you're definitely not on their books! Onto more interesting points. I read all of both articles, I was also alive at the time it all happened so can remember it well. To recap, you think the Sousa and Sven situations are evidence that our current owners have made mistakes in the past, and are likely to have done so again. You've provided two articles, one which is at best a cryptic message from Pearson, the other Milan Mandaric discussing the appointment of Sven. My argument is that our current owners had little to do with either the Sousa or Sven situation. The Independent article supports that, as it makes it clear that it was in fact Mandaric still pulling the strings at that time, and since Sousa came before that, before the Thais had even bought the club, it's reasonable to assume that Mandaric was pulling the strings during that time, too. Well considering that article places the beginning of the takeover in early August 2010, and the owners first being involved in meetings at the club in May-June 2010, I'd say they definitely had a hand in Sven's presence at the club. They were credited - in public, by Mandaric - with the signing of Waghorn in August, so I'd be very surprised if they were oblivious to Sousa's sacking or Sven's appointment at the end of September / start of October. http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Martyn-Waghorn-deal-tops-busy-day-Leicester-City/story-12091167-detail/story.html If you insist that Pearson saying the presence of Sousa, together with that of the owners, in May - and Pearson resigning because he could 'see what was going on' - had nothing to do with the takeover, then you're entitled to do so. And how on earth is that message in the October 2nd 2010 interview cryptic? It's incredibly clear what he's saying. My point here is that we know, beyond any doubt, that Pearson is capable of rubbing people up the wrong way. We know he has a bad relationship with the media, he admitted in your article that he had a bad relationship with Mandaric. He has been involved with spats with fans and opposition players. With that in mind, it would hardly be a surprise to learn that Pearson went too far this time in a new incident between him and the owners and had to be sacked. Which managers, exactly, have enjoyed a 'good' relationship in Mandaric? It's astonishing that you use this against him. To my mind, the manager who has enjoyed the best relationship to date with Mandaric is Harry Redknapp, and the less said about his integrity the better. And you don't sack a manager merely because he 'rubs you up the wrong way'. If they have done so then they will be successfully sued for wrongful dismissal.
inckley fox Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Don't apologise, I honestly couldn't care less. Your point seems to be that the Owners know the King, so what? What does that prove? I'm not even going to repeat it. Read the post for yourself, the point is incredibly clear and I've repeated it several times for you. It made perfect sense the first, you just choose to keep misrepresenting it.
Webbo Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 I'm not even going to repeat it. Read the post for yourself, the point is incredibly clear and I've repeated it several times for you. It made perfect sense the first, you just choose to keep misrepresenting it. It doesn't matter if Top is best mates with the Yorkshire Ripper. It doesn't prove that they were wrong to sack him.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.