Pearson Sacked

[ImBlue]

I'm not saying I have more facts. I have the same facts as everyone else, I'm just not making huge assumptions. There is an uncomfortable level of uncertainty that will lead to these arguments which is another reason that we deserve an explanation, but until then I'm not just going to assume the owners have a good reason. But you're wrong if you think I don't want there to be a good reason, I hope there is. I hope someone hasn't just been sacked for achieving success, I hope my football club isn't run by incompetent people who know very little about football, I'm just not at all convinced.

Sacked for achieving success?

They clearly aren't incompetent, hence why they are billionaires. As for knowing football, I'm sure they do know a bit, but then they don't have to know a lot do they? That's why they employ people who do.

[ClaphamFox]

I hope there is. I hope someone hasn't just been sacked for achieving success

Why would they sack him for achieving success?

[Mark_w]

Why would anyone be 'sacked for achieving success'?

The owners want/need success almost as much as the fans.

 

Okay not sacked for achieving success. But he's been sacked despite it and at the moment I see no logical reason for sacking him. So I hope there's a good reason they've weighed it up and sacked him despite that success, but I doubt it. Happy?

 

They clearly aren't incompetent, hence why they are billionaires.

 

The clearly aren't incompetent duty-free company owners. They may well be incompetent football club owners. It's really not the same thing.

[Raw Dykes]

I'm not saying I have more facts. I have the same facts as everyone else, I'm just not making huge assumptions. There is an uncomfortable level of uncertainty that will lead to these arguments which is another reason that we deserve an explanation, but until then I'm not just going to assume the owners have a good reason. But you're wrong if you think I don't want there to be a good reason, I hope there is. I hope someone hasn't just been sacked for achieving success, I hope my football club isn't run by incompetent people who know very little about football, I'm just not at all convinced.

 

I agree.

 

What it boils down to is that the reason we were given is, in no way, shape or form, good enough for sacking one of the greatest managers in our history, while the club was still very much in the ascendency, to god-knows what heights.

 

What matters is that without being given good reason, we're left to assume there isn't any. The owners cannot expect us to just shrug our shoulders and say, "Must be a really good reason for this." It's just as likely that there isn't. It could just as easily be about how much the owners want to needlessly spend for all we know.

[ImBlue]

Okay not sacked for achieving success. But he's been sacked despite it and at the moment I see no logical reason for sacking him. So I hope there's a good reason they've weighed it up and sacked him despite that success, but I doubt it. Happy?

The clearly aren't incompetent duty-free company owners. They may well be incompetent football club owners. It's really not the same thing.

Let's not go as far as success. He did a great job in pulling us out of an impossible position, but it was a position I believe he put us in with his naivety of not signing a quality centre back in the summer. The minimum expectation from the owners would have been survival for a team that won the championship at a canter. Therefore in terms of on the field, he probably met expectations, but no more, also considering our cup runs weren't up to much either.

I'd say the owners have been competent owners thus far. People have only started to question that since NP's sacking, which due to people's attachment to him on here, is hardly surprising I suppose.

I also think the fan incident played a big part. I doubt the owners were happy with Pearsons refusal to apologise, given the bad press it gave us at the time.

[Mark_w]

Let's not go as far as success. He did a great job in pulling us out of an impossible position, but it was a position I believe he put us in with his naivety of not signing a quality centre back in the summer. The minimum expectation from the owners would have been survival for a team that won the championship at a canter. Therefore in terms of on the field, he probably met expectations, but no more, also considering our cup runs weren't up to much either.

I'd say the owners have been competent owners thus far. People have only started to question that since NP's sacking, which due to people's attachment to him on here, is hardly surprising I suppose.

 

You realise he's been here more than one season right? Over the course of his time here he has been a huge success, and I can assure you that 14th place for a newly promoted side, the second cheapest in the division, is success. Anyone who thinks it isn't is wrong. Even if you think he's only met expectations that is still success.

 

I was questioning the owners quite a bit before Nigel was appointed based on other decisions. During his reign when there were strong rumours they were trying to replace him on one occasion and again when they did sack and reinstate him. So were many others. So no, it's not just a knee-jerk reaction to what looks like an awful decision (which honestly is reason enough to doubt them - but it's not the only reason).

[Finnaldo]

Let's not go as far as success. He did a great job in pulling us out of an impossible position, but it was a position I believe he put us in with his naivety of not signing a quality centre back in the summer. The minimum expectation from the owners would have been survival for a team that won the championship at a canter. Therefore in terms of on the field, he probably met expectations, but no more, also considering our cup runs weren't up to much either.

I'd say the owners have been competent owners thus far. People have only started to question that since NP's sacking, which due to people's attachment to him on here, is hardly surprising I suppose.

Pearson has definitely been successful, a lot of people her bogged down by last season's run but when you look at the bigger picture, we've gone from League 1 to 14th place in the Prem under Pearson. It was also his first season in the Prem and lessons definitely seemed to be learnt by the end of the season.

People are going to question the sacking after all his success but at the same time I think it's harsh to criticise the owners yet. People point to previous appointments yet at the same time, we were a Championship team who were around the 5th-10th place team. I'm disappointed by losing Pearson and concerned about the potential replacements, but until we hear something I'm not going to speculate on what went on when we know nothing beyond a small statement.

[ImBlue]

You realise he's been here more than one season right? Over the course of his time here he has been a huge success, and I can assure you that 14th place for a newly promoted side, the second cheapest in the division, is success. Anyone who thinks it isn't is wrong. Even if you think he's only met expectations that is still success.

I was questioning the owners quite a bit before Nigel was appointed based on other decisions. During his reign when there were strong rumours they were trying to replace him on one occasion and again when they did sack and reinstate him. So were many others. So no, it's not just a knee-jerk reaction to what looks like an awful decision (which honestly is reason enough to doubt them - but it's not the only reason).

Safe with one game to go tells a better story than 14th, and we both know it, we got to 14th playing a dead rubber against an already relegated side. It was more of a struggle than you are suggesting.

Regardless he did excellently getting us promoted, and it's a hard division to get out of, that I will not down play.

But he isn't the only manager than can achieve survival in the premier league, and maybe we can get one that doesn't rub people up the wrong way and create an emabarrassing side show all season. Let's be honest, Pearson doesn't seem easy to manage does he?

The owners will have questions to answer if the next appointment doesn't work out, but until then why don't you just get behind them, the club and the new manager.

[ImBlue]

Pearson has definitely been successful, a lot of people her bogged down by last season's run but when you look at the bigger picture, we've gone from League 1 to 14th place in the Prem under Pearson. It was also his first season in the Prem and lessons definitely seemed to be learnt by the end of the season.

People are going to question the sacking after all his success but at the same time I think it's harsh to criticise the owners yet. People point to previous appointments yet at the same time, we were a Championship team who were around the 5th-10th place team. I'm disappointed by losing Pearson and concerned about the potential replacements, but until we hear something I'm not going to speculate on what went on when we know nothing beyond a small statement.

That's fair.

I remember the uproar of Adkins at Southampton. Surviving at the time he was sacked. The club has gone to the next level and he is now in league one.

You never know how things work out is what I'm saying, and while we can be disappointed as there has been some great memories with Pearson, it's come to an end for whatever reason and we CAN move forward now. I just wish people would stop the doom and gloom on the club as if we will never progress now he's gone.

[Viva]

Okay not sacked for achieving success. But he's been sacked despite it and at the moment I see no logical reason for sacking him. So I hope there's a good reason they've weighed it up and sacked him despite that success, but I doubt it. Happy?

 

 

The clearly aren't incompetent duty-free company owners. They may well be incompetent football club owners. It's really not the same thing.

Do you think our owners have had nothing to do with our recent success then? They hired your darling in the first place and have done a lot of good things for this club, so they don't look too incompetent to me.

[Mark_w]

Do you think our owners have had nothing to do with our recent success then? They hired your darling in the first place and have done a lot of good things for this club, so they don't look too incompetent to me.

 

They've also made a lot of bad decisions. I think they are partially responsible for recent success, but I think Nigel Pearson has been much more influential. I think it's a pretty mixed bag so far, but I think there's every chance this decision will prove to be the worst they've made yet and could undo all the good work that had been done at the club in recent years.

[inckley fox]

Obviously there was a reason though. You're turning into inckley fox there. "We don't know the reason therefore it must be bad. PS King Power? Spelt with a 'K', as in KKK, they're pretty obviously bad people".

(that was a joke )

There obviously was a reason, trying to curtail the argument before considering the obvious existence of a reason is quite dumb.

Obvious obvious obvious

 

You will struggle to find any self-respecting football pundit, expert or pro who would consider the sacking of a successful manager, at his most successful, to be a good decision unless there is a convincing reason given for it.

 

It's all very well saying 'there must be a good reason, therefore I'm convinced that there's a good reason', but history - let alone football - is full of decisions being made without there being any justification other than people's personal whims.

 

So yes, of course there could be a good reason, but we can imagine scenarios whereby the owners were to blame or Pearson was to blame all day long. That's all you're doing - imagining. It's not how you formulate a convincing argument, even though I've seen some interesting and credible theories which back the board, and others which back Pearson.

 

Until they justify their decision, or it turns out beautifully, it will inevitably look - on the face of things - like a bad decision. That's not because we're taking Pearson's side over that of the owners. Based on what we know, the only thing which can make the sacking understandable is the sort of guess you and others keep making, which is that Pearson behaved in the boardroom in the same way as he did in the Press room. We don't know this yet and so the logical conclusion has to be that this appears to be a bad decision but that, given time or a proper explanation, that could change.

 

Anything beyond that is simply a matter of people trusting in the owners' professionalism or dignity ahead of that of the manager, which is a very tough game to play. Now I'm no 'Pearson disciple' - my past posts demonstrate that - but you have to make your assessments based on the evidence at hand, rather than your own imagined 'most likely scenario'.

 

We all hope it turns out to be the right decision - or we should - but with no evidence for a 'non-footballing reason' to debate, all we can do is look at the decision from a football fan's perspective, and without the benefit of knowing all sorts of inner-workings which we can't possibly know, and without being able to look into the future. If you believe in the owners over Pearson then, much like all of the other things people believe in without having any evidence for, you're just believing in what you want to believe in, or what your imagination tells you to believe in.

[MPH]

Why would they sack him for achieving success?

I suppose it could be that their plan all along was to have a higher profile manager when they got to the prem..

( that's pretty much the reason why he was hounded out in the first place...)

[Sharpe's Fox]

inckly fox is schooling everyone today

[ImBlue]

Until they justify their decision, or it turns out beautifully, it will inevitably look - on the face of things - like a bad decision. That's not because we're taking Pearson's side over that of the owners. Based on what we know, the only thing which can make the sacking understandable is the sort of guess you and others keep making, which is that Pearson behaved in the boardroom in the same way as he did in the Press room. We don't know this yet and so the logical conclusion has to be that this appears to be a bad decision but that, given time or a proper explanation, that could change..

You expect he acted differently than he does on the touchline and press room?

The man was stubborn. When he believed in some things he would make it clear regardless of whether it was better to keep his counsel or not.

I'm not theorising as to what happened, but I believe it was this attitude as lack of restraint that was ultimately his downfall, regardless of right or wrong.

[inckley fox]

The exact reason and the straw that broke the camels back may never come out and I guess that is understandable. Given a general picture I am convinced that it was deserved as were those a lot more intelligent than I am when hearing.

I have do doubt.

I can only imagine the reasons but understand there were plenty in his final days.

Fact that he disappeared seems to suggest he went away to cool down? That is an assumption.

 

I'm as keen as you are for the sacking to be justified, both by the reason for it being adequate and by the club going on to bigger and better things without Pearson.

 

But there are plenty of scenarios, perfectly believable ones, which would make the board the 'guiltier party', just as there were plenty which would give the heftier slab of blame to Pearson. He could have had players forced on him, as happened with Abe and Sousa. They could have handled the Thai hotel saga inappropriately themselves. They could have simply wanted a bigger name manager, thought they could get one, and been let down. Their decision-making, much like Pearson's personal conduct, hasn't been beyond questioning in the past.

 

Unfortunately we can't say that the board or Pearson were responsible, so we're left with a decision to sack a successful manager at the height of his success, which looks on the face of it to be a bad decision, however many plausible scenarios we can think of which would make it justifiable. And I agree that it's possible that our explanation could lie in his personal conduct, though there are plenty of other possibilities out there.

 

We all hope it turns out to be a good decision, of course. And time will be the real test of that.

[Mike Oxlong]

Until we're given a good reason we can only surmise that it is a bad decision. It certainly isn't good for the club from a footballing perspective, and we've been given no reason to believe it's the right decision morally, so yeah it's looking pretty bad to me.

We don't know the reason as to why we haven't been given a reason so we assume it's a duff decision?

Not logical in my opinion

Nigel of course can let us know what has happened either now or at the tribunal hearing. One wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions arising from his present silence.

[Viva]

You will struggle to find any self-respecting football pundit, expert or pro who would consider the sacking of a successful manager, at his most successful, to be a good decision unless there is a convincing reason given for it.

 

It's all very well saying 'there must be a good reason, therefore I'm convinced that there's a good reason', but history - let alone football - is full of decisions being made without there being any justification other than people's personal whims.

 

So yes, of course there could be a good reason, but we can imagine scenarios whereby the owners were to blame or Pearson was to blame all day long. That's all you're doing - imagining. It's not how you formulate a convincing argument, even though I've seen some interesting and credible theories which back the board, and others which back Pearson.

 

Until they justify their decision, or it turns out beautifully, it will inevitably look - on the face of things - like a bad decision. That's not because we're taking Pearson's side over that of the owners. Based on what we know, the only thing which can make the sacking understandable is the sort of guess you and others keep making, which is that Pearson behaved in the boardroom in the same way as he did in the Press room. We don't know this yet and so the logical conclusion has to be that this appears to be a bad decision but that, given time or a proper explanation, that could change.

 

Anything beyond that is simply a matter of people trusting in the owners' professionalism or dignity ahead of that of the manager, which is a very tough game to play. Now I'm no 'Pearson disciple' - my past posts demonstrate that - but you have to make your assessments based on the evidence at hand, rather than your own imagined 'most likely scenario'.

 

We all hope it turns out to be the right decision - or we should - but with no evidence for a 'non-footballing reason' to debate, all we can do is look at the decision from a football fan's perspective, and without the benefit of knowing all sorts of inner-workings which we can't possibly know, and without being able to look into the future. If you believe in the owners over Pearson then, much like all of the other things people believe in without having any evidence for, you're just believing in what you want to believe in, or what your imagination tells you to believe in.

 

I think out of all this though, I won't just forget where we were in the league in March. A lot of people post at how it's the most crazy decision ever, when not long ago at all we were tailed off at the bottom, well adrift of teams we comfortably beat the year before. 

While the amazing run kept us up, those nine games do not convince me that the decision was such a mad one. That's why I am happy to take what the owners have decided and move on.  Some players have an amazing run of matches, but it doesn't make them world beaters. Look at Connor Wickham!

[ImBlue]

Do people not think his conduct throughout the season was enough for the owners not to fancy that again? And maybe they kept him til the end of the season to give themselves the best chance of staying up?

[Babylon]

well adrift of teams we comfortably beat the year before. 

Oh that again... we were behind them for about half the of season before as well.

 

We had clearly been very close to getting it right in a lot of games before that run, we didn't just go from being shit to brilliant. We started to convert decent performances like Arsenal, Spurs, Palace, Liverpool into wins that we hadn't before.  Yes we were shit in a fair proportion of games, but so were the opposition in most of those games as well... only on a handful of occasions did we look well out of place.

 

That's why people had confidence.

[inckley fox]

You expect he acted differently than he does on the touchline and press room?

The man was stubborn. When he believed in some things he would make it clear regardless of whether it was better to keep his counsel or not.

I'm not theorising as to what happened, but I believe it was this attitude as lack of restraint that was ultimately his downfall, regardless of right or wrong.

 

Of course I expect that he behaved differently in the boardroom to in the press room. I'd hope the vast majority of good managers did if they expected to stay in a job for long. And generally speaking, across the professional spectrum, people behave in different ways in different circumstances.

 

And you say you're not theorising in the same sentence that you propose a theory!

 

Look, I understand why you'd believe the things you believe, just as I understand why others would believe something else. All I'm saying is that these are just theories - that he was as stubborn behind closed doors as he was on the radio, that he tended to fall out with a lot of people in comparison to other managers, that he did 'something' which overstepped the mark one time too many, and that the board were therefore justified. 

 

If we strip away these theories - and there are plenty of arguments out there which would debunk a few of them - then we're left with a successful manager being fired at the peak of his success. That alone, with no further explanation, looks like a bad decision. Let's hope it doesn't turn out to be.

[Mike Oxlong]

You will struggle to find any self-respecting football pundit, expert or pro who would consider the sacking of a successful manager, at his most successful, to be a good decision unless there is a convincing reason given for it.

It's all very well saying 'there must be a good reason, therefore I'm convinced that there's a good reason', but history - let alone football - is full of decisions being made without there being any justification other than people's personal whims.

So yes, of course there could be a good reason, but we can imagine scenarios whereby the owners were to blame or Pearson was to blame all day long. That's all you're doing - imagining. It's not how you formulate a convincing argument, even though I've seen some interesting and credible theories which back the board, and others which back Pearson.

Until they justify their decision, or it turns out beautifully, it will inevitably look - on the face of things - like a bad decision. That's not because we're taking Pearson's side over that of the owners. Based on what we know, the only thing which can make the sacking understandable is the sort of guess you and others keep making, which is that Pearson behaved in the boardroom in the same way as he did in the Press room. We don't know this yet and so the logical conclusion has to be that this appears to be a bad decision but that, given time or a proper explanation, that could change.

Anything beyond that is simply a matter of people trusting in the owners' professionalism or dignity ahead of that of the manager, which is a very tough game to play. Now I'm no 'Pearson disciple' - my past posts demonstrate that - but you have to make your assessments based on the evidence at hand, rather than your own imagined 'most likely scenario'.

We all hope it turns out to be the right decision - or we should - but with no evidence for a 'non-footballing reason' to debate, all we can do is look at the decision from a football fan's perspective, and without the benefit of knowing all sorts of inner-workings which we can't possibly know, and without being able to look into the future. If you believe in the owners over Pearson then, much like all of the other things people believe in without having any evidence for, you're just believing in what you want to believe in, or what your imagination tells you to believe in.

The failure to give the reason may or may not be a bad decision. Confidentiality clauses, pending legal proceedings, a desire not to wash dirty laundry in public, financial severance agreements may all account for the failure to disclose. Equally, there may be no good reason not to disclose. But that failure does not of itself render the original decision a bad one. It means that we are not in a position to judge if it is good or bad.

There are two parties to the dispute and either one has the facts to make disclosure. If Nigel has been poorly treated perhaps we will hear his beef. If not should we assume that he was rightly sacked?

My answer would be no because we do not have the knowledge to make a fully informed judgement and we cannot assess why it is that we do not have that information.

[Viva]

Oh that again... we were behind them for about half the of season before as well.

There's not many times you survive being about 1/25 to go down. We managed it. Well done Nigel, but next time we are in that position, we go down!

[yorkie1999]

He was sacked because they felt they couldn't work with him any more after he went mad at not being allowed into his sons meeting.

[inckley fox]

The failure to give the reason may or may not be a bad decision. Confidentiality clauses, pending legal proceedings, a desire not to wash dirty laundry in public, financial severance agreements may all account for the failure to disclose. Equally, there may be no good reason to disclose. But that failure does not of itself render the original decision a bad one. It means that we are not in a position to judge if it is good or bad.

There are two parties to the dispute and either one has the facts to make disclosure. If Nigel has been poorly treated perhaps we will hear his beef. If not should we assume that he was rightly sacked?

My answer would be no because we do not have the knowledge to make a fully informed judgement and we cannot assess why it is that we do not have that information.

 

The first paragraph is excellent. I agree with all of it.

 

And, as you say later, without hearing any evidence as to whether or not a person should have been sacked from their job, my first instinct - and that of the courts - would be that it needs to be justified in order for me to agree with it.

 

The owners have made some great calls and some wrong calls in the past, so why would we automatically assume that they've got this one right? It might well be the right decision, but there is no way on earth that any of us can know that it is.