Viva Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 No its not. Your issue is that we didn't perform or get results against the teams around us at home in the middle of the season. As it happened those points didn't matter due to the freak end of season results. 9 times out of 10, they would matter.
EnglishOxide Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 As it happened those points didn't matter due to the freak end of season results. 9 times out of 10, they would matter. You are a gibbering mess.
inckley fox Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 Pearson walked, that's fact. Mandaric was owner for Sousa and chairman for Sven - fact. Mandaric did all the interviews - fact. Make your own mind up of course but it seems conclusive to me. But again you're just pretending that all of the evidence you've been presented with doesn't exist. The legal proceedings for the takeover began in August 2010, the current owners were publicly credited by Mandaric for bringing in Waghorn at the start of September, and Abe before that. The owners were at the club in May and June when the takeover was being discussed and Pearson was suspicious of this, and the fact that Sousa was being shown around at the same time. All of this is also fact. Now you may well maintain that people in the process of buying out a business don't have any say in departures and appointments while this is taking place, including the ones they are publicly credited with, but it would seem incredibly naive to do so and I would say your claims are far, far from being conclusive. If anything is conclusive, it's the precise opposite of what you're saying. A takeover was going on before he left, Pearson felt he was going to be forced out of the club at the time, and that specifically Sousa was going to be appointed, so he left. And there's no question that strings were being pulled by the current board in the summer of 2010, because Mandaric himself said they were. As you already know full well, of course.
Viva Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 You are a gibbering mess. Is that all you can come up with Oxide? Ha ha
artursteppe Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 Who is this Pearson chap everyone keeps talking about?
Babylon Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 Pearson walked, that's fact. Mandaric was owner for Sousa and chairman for Sven - fact. Mandaric did all the interviews - fact. Make your own mind up of course but it seems conclusive to me. For something to be conclusive I like to use evidence. Mandaric being Chairman or owner I'm afraid isn't enough, and you probably know why before I even say it. If you have a takeover going through (it was in the pipeline before Pearson ever went) then it muddies the water. You don't know what their requests were.
Frank to be Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 But again you're just pretending that all of the evidence you've been presented with doesn't exist. The legal proceedings for the takeover began in August 2010, the current owners were publicly credited by Mandaric for bringing in Waghorn at the start of September, and Abe before that. The owners were at the club in May and June when the takeover was being discussed and Pearson was suspicious of this, and the fact that Sousa was being shown around at the same time. All of this is also fact. Now you may well maintain that people in the process of buying out a business don't have any say in departures and appointments while this is taking place, including the ones they are publicly credited with, but it would seem incredibly naive to do so and I would say your claims are far, far from being conclusive. If anything is conclusive, it's the precise opposite of what you're saying. A takeover was going on before he left, Pearson felt he was going to be forced out of the club at the time, and that specifically Sousa was going to be appointed, so he left. And there's no question that strings were being pulled by the current board in the summer of 2010, because Mandaric himself said they were. As you already know full well, of course. There's a video on the BBC of mandaric saying how much the fans will like his new appointment, Sousa, where mandaric also talks about potential "new partners" joining the club, but makes clear nothing is certain and no specific parties are mentioned. He says he has seen a lot of prospective partners come and go, so clearly at that stage wasn't taking the interest from the thai's as a definite sign they would become partners. In that context it seems obvious to me that he would have continued managing the club as he saw fit, and that included letting Pearson walk out and subsequently hiring Sousa. There is no evidence that the thai's had any say in this at all. None at all.
inckley fox Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 There's a video on the BBC of mandaric saying how much the fans will like his new appointment, Sousa, where mandaric also talks about potential "new partners" joining the club, but makes clear nothing is certain and no specific parties are mentioned. He says he has seen a lot of prospective partners come and go, so clearly at that stage wasn't taking the interest from the thai's as a definite sign they would become partners. In that context it seems obvious to me that he would have continued managing the club as he saw fit, and that included letting Pearson walk out and subsequently hiring Sousa. There is no evidence that the thai's had any say in this at all. None at all. There's plenty of evidence, much of which I've provided links for. You're confusing evidence with proof. Sousa was appointed on 7th July, little more than a week after Pearson left. The story about the Rasriaksorn takeover buying 49% of the club broke on 12th July. Pearson stated that the then-future owners had been present at the club, without him being notified, back in May and June, and so had Sousa. Pearson said he 'knew what was happening'. Subsequently the club allowed an approach for him and hired Sousa. By the start of the new season the takeover was already awaiting league approval and signings such as Abe and Waghorn were credited to the new owners. Your original suggestion that they weren't pulling strings in the summer of 2010 is absurd. Just after his takeover Sousa spoke about the new owners. While Mandaric said the owners were yet to meet face-to-face with Sousa they had certainly already spoken, because Sousa referred to a prior conversation with them. You try to give Mandaric the blame for bringing in Sousa and Eriksson on the grounds that he took credit for both of them, but that sort of assumes Mandaric always tells the truth. I think it was on 30th September of that year that he urged the fans to get behind Sousa and pledged him his full support. Like I said before, you could ignore all of this evidence if you wished. You could argue that Pearson was lying about their presence at the club, or that major decisions in the long term interest of the club were made without their approval while the takeover was already under way (even though we know they were involved in several key decisions before the takeover was ratified, and even made their involvement public knowledge). Some might consider that to be a little blinkered, or even selective in terms of which evidence you wish to pay attention to and which you don't, but it's up to you. So there's plenty of evidence that the board were involved in club affairs before they took over, that they had been in takeover talks with Mandaric before Pearson left, that Sousa was already being shown around the club, and that Pearson was suspicious of all this. Proof, you might say. You can put 2 and 2 together and fail to come to 4 if you wish, but it would be exceptionally strange - considering the above - if they were kept out of the loop when Pearson was leaving the club. Maybe they were advised not to meet with Pearson and went along with this, maybe they actively sought his replacement. That's where the evidence ends and the speculation begins. One might point towards the fact that Mandaric had 5, arguably 6 managers at the club before Sousa - all of which were Englishmen - whereas the owners have only had one (Pearson), with the other three all being highly-rated continental managers. Like I say, that would be speculation, regardless of how much sense it seems to make. But there is no evidence, let alone proof, for Pearson having committed an act of gross misconduct, or having 'done something' out of the ordinary which warranted his latest sacking. And while I appreciate that you arguing the board's innocence in Pearson's first exit provides you with a welcome distraction, it really serves to highlight - by comparison - the complete absence of evidence that you have to back up your approval of the sacking.
ImBlue Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 Inckley, if I had an arsehole working for me I would look for any reason to sack them. Don't want to get sacked? Don't be an arsehole.
BoneDog Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 I hope the hyena's have backed off Webbo a bit today. It was like the bloody Spanish Inquisition in here yesterday.
Webbo Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 I hope the hyena's have backed off Webbo a bit today. It was like the bloody Spanish Inquisition in here yesterday. As Nige would say, "I can handle myself".
dylanlegend Posted 14 July 2015 Posted 14 July 2015 http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/cambiasso-at-leicester-city-argentina-legend-not-signed-just-to-buy-big-name-9700665.html "I don't like signing players for commercial reasons" NP said last year. Maybe Okazaki was that.... A commercial signing.... And NP wasn't impressed
Suffolk exile Posted 14 July 2015 Posted 14 July 2015 http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/cambiasso-at-leicester-city-argentina-legend-not-signed-just-to-buy-big-name-9700665.html "I don't like signing players for commercial reasons" NP said last year. Maybe Okazaki was that.... A commercial signing.... And NP wasn't impressed I think that was a given. Definitely agree!
Viva Posted 14 July 2015 Posted 14 July 2015 http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/cambiasso-at-leicester-city-argentina-legend-not-signed-just-to-buy-big-name-9700665.html "I don't like signing players for commercial reasons" NP said last year. Maybe Okazaki was that.... A commercial signing.... And NP wasn't impressed Walsh said they had been tracking him for 2 years and seemed very pleased to have got him.
dylanlegend Posted 14 July 2015 Posted 14 July 2015 Walsh said they had been tracking him for 2 years and seemed very pleased to have got him. Maybe because Top said "find the best Asian player we can realistically attract and sign him up"
Webbo Posted 14 July 2015 Posted 14 July 2015 http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/cambiasso-at-leicester-city-argentina-legend-not-signed-just-to-buy-big-name-9700665.html "I don't like signing players for commercial reasons" NP said last year. Maybe Okazaki was that.... A commercial signing.... And NP wasn't impressed If that was the case then he should have resigned, not kick up and force the owners to sack him. If he had I would have supported him.
Corky Posted 14 July 2015 Posted 14 July 2015 http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/cambiasso-at-leicester-city-argentina-legend-not-signed-just-to-buy-big-name-9700665.html "I don't like signing players for commercial reasons" NP said last year. Maybe Okazaki was that.... A commercial signing.... And NP wasn't impressed Maybe he was sacked for something else? Maybe he wanted the signing? We won't know why he left and the unclear explanation doesn't help. It's a shame he left in the way he did but we've got a new manager to support now.
Guest Col city fan Posted 14 July 2015 Posted 14 July 2015 No offence, but is this thread still going and does anyone actually know anything about why he was sacked?
Wymsey Posted 14 July 2015 Posted 14 July 2015 No offence, but is this thread still going and does anyone actually know anything about why he was sacked? Apparently Pearson is still going through legal proceeding to file a claim for unfair dismissal, not joking.
Matt Posted 14 July 2015 Posted 14 July 2015 No offence, but is this thread still going and does anyone actually know anything about why he was sacked? No, but if we found out, we could probably one way or another move on, this will be hanging over the owners head for a long time I think because they look like the bad guys in this (In most people's opinion) and the fans want answers. If we have a bad start, god help them.
hackneyfox Posted 14 July 2015 Posted 14 July 2015 Apparently Pearson is still going through legal proceeding to file a claim for unfair dismissal, not joking. You know this how exactly?
Guest MattP Posted 14 July 2015 Posted 14 July 2015 No offence, but is this thread still going and does anyone actually know anything about why he was sacked? If rumours from a lot of people in the media are to be believed neither does Pearson still.
Mark_w Posted 14 July 2015 Posted 14 July 2015 http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/cambiasso-at-leicester-city-argentina-legend-not-signed-just-to-buy-big-name-9700665.html "I don't like signing players for commercial reasons" NP said last year. Maybe Okazaki was that.... A commercial signing.... And NP wasn't impressed I think that was a given. Definitely agree! Maybe because Top said "find the best Asian player we can realistically attract and sign him up" I find this all quite difficult to believe. Okazaki has a very good record in a strong league. Last year then Leicester scout Rob Mackenzie was saying the Bundesliga is a division that it's good to get players from as the transition to English football isn't too difficult. I get the impression that Mainz play a similar way to us(?) and Okazaki fits the Pearson mold perfectly in terms of work rate and attitude. Pearson basically admitted we wanted him for a couple of years. Okazaki is exactly the kind of signing Pearson and his team make, the only reason there's any speculation of owner interference is that he's Japanese, which really isn't strong enough evidence on its own. I'm not exactly fond of the owners at the moment, so it'd be in my interests to suggest they were signing players behind Pearson's back, but in this case at least it just seems incredibly unlikely.
Guest Col city fan Posted 14 July 2015 Posted 14 July 2015 Ah so it is still going and it is all still speculation. That's a relief..
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.