Pearson Sacked

[Webbo]

You have a lot more patience than me Webbo, I doff my hat to you.

I'm quite enjoying it.

[hackneyfox]

Exactly what I thought. Assuming that they've accrued their wealth by fair and competitive means, you'd have thought they'd have learned the age-old lesson that somebody who makes you loads of money is more important than someone who behaves him or herself impeccably. It's surprising to see how many of these wonderful businessmen who turn up in football and seem to forget that. Perhaps a person's wealth isn't a reasonable reflection of their intelligence and worth to society after all.

Someone who makes you money is more important than someone who behaves impeccably UNLESS they are a complete pain in the arse to work with.

Boss v employee will only lead to one winner.

[hackneyfox]

I'm quite enjoying it.

I can see that and you're ripping most of them a new one but they are too emotionally linked to NFP to believe that there is even a chance that he may be wrong and the owners had no choice.

[inckley fox]

Perhaps they were appreciative of his getting us promoted and finally managing to keep us up so decided not to give the reason as 'gross misconduct'.

We will or won't find out eventually, paragraph after paragraph of people's opinions (and that is all they are as nobody knows anything) is starting to get a tad boring.

 

You don't have a clue as to whether or how he defended his son but are happy to assume the owners are wrong.

You then give 2 spurious scenarios and state they are illegal.

You don't have a clue, it really is time to take a deep breath and move on until we know more (which I doubt we ever will).

 

I haven't assumed they were wrong at all, as I keep saying. I've just pointed out that if you sack someone who is very successful and give no good reason for it then people will naturally assume that it's a silly decision. Including a court of law. And yes, it would have been illegal if he's been sacked purely for a civilised difference of opinion. I never suggested that that is what happened.

 

 

Inckley,

Can't see whether you answered my question yesterday.

Were you calling for NFP to leave before the final few games of last season?

 

Absolutely, and I've alluded to that many times. I said quite openly, though always very respectfully where Pearson was concerned, that he had been a very good manager but if we were already relegated we may as well bring someone else in to get up to speed. It turned out that I was massively wrong. I admitted I was wrong - as everyone else under the sun should have - and adapted my opinion to fit what actually happened, as opposed to what I thought had happened.

[Mike Oxlong]

A court wouldn't draw an adverse inference about a failure to disclose unless that omission was unreasonable.

There may be many good reasons for non disclosure so assumptions that that tthe sacking is a silly decision because of the non disclosure are rather illogical.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

My mourning period is officially over. 

[inckley fox]

Someone who makes you money is more important than someone who behaves impeccably UNLESS they are a complete pain in the arse to work with.

Boss v employee will only lead to one winner.

 

But we don't know that. And being a 'pain in the arse' is nowhere near enough reason to legally fire someone. They have to commit an act of gross misconduct or be bad at their jobs, and neither is relevant to Pearson.

 

 

I can see that and you're ripping most of them a new one but they are too emotionally linked to NFP to believe that there is even a chance that he may be wrong and the owners had no choice.

 

Certainly not relevant to me. I have no emotional link to NFP - you said as much yourself when you reminded me that I'd accepted his position might need looking at back in March - though the use of the term 'NFP' sort of suggests that your opinion isn't entirely neutral. I'm also fully willing to believe that the owners may have had no choice but to sack him. Sadly, seeing as there's no evidence whatsoever to support this opinion, I take the same view that any judge would take - namely, that until there's any evidence that he deserved the sack, he didn't deserve it. Prior evidence relating to personalities and previous conduct could point as much towards the owners' guilt as it could Pearson's, so the obvious conclusion is that we fired a successful manager at the peak of his success and haven't yet given a good reason for doing so. Which isn't, generally speaking, a great thing to do.

 

The obvious way out from a fan's viewpoint is for results to justify their decision. After all, fans should have no interest in the ins-and-outs of mundane reality in the City boardroom. Why should we care whether Top enjoys his Monday meeting with Nige or not? If Pierpoint had become City chairman in 99, as he nearly did, would you have backed him over O'Neill because O'Neill would have made his job unpleasant and 'employer always trumps employee'?

 

Another way of looking at it is this: Your argument is that we should be willing to believe the owners were right. Now, I am willing to believe this but - until presented with the right evidence - take the view that the sacking of a successful employee can't be right. This is the standard view taken in English law, and clearly - in this case - by the vast bulk of Leicester fans. You, on the other hand, argue that we shouldn't take this view, but rather be completely open-minded as to the sacking. But is this your actual opinion? Would you say you're as open to the possibility that the owners were to blame as to the possibility that Pearson was to blame? That you don't take either side? Because it looks like you've already come to your conclusion. Is it because you feel you owe a greater allegiance to our owners, or is it because you feel some sense of 'belief' in them? Or is it that you simply never liked 'NFP'?

[hackneyfox]

I haven't assumed they were wrong at all, as I keep saying. I've just pointed out that if you sack someone who is very successful and give no good reason for it then people will naturally assume that it's a silly decision. Including a court of law. And yes, it would have been illegal if he's been sacked purely for a civilised difference of opinion. I never suggested that that is what happened.

 

 

 

Absolutely, and I've alluded to that many times. I said quite openly, though always very respectfully where Pearson was concerned, that he had been a very good manager but if we were already relegated we may as well bring someone else in to get up to speed. It turned out that I was massively wrong. I admitted I was wrong - as everyone else under the sun should have - and adapted my opinion to fit what actually happened, as opposed to what I thought had happened.

You 'haven't assumed' but can understand why others, including a court of law would?

You are assuming that it would have been a civilised difference of opinion.

I wouldn't assume that of someone who tells a fan to FOAD and calls a journalist a ****. For me he seems to have anger management problems or can't cope with pressure so it could be that it was far from civilised.

 

The reason I asked whether you had lost faith in NFP is because you now seem to be doing your level best to make up for that and seem to want to blame the owners.

[Corky]

Look, NFP has gone. CFR is here now, back him.

[hackneyfox]

But we don't know that. And being a 'pain in the arse' is nowhere near enough reason to legally fire someone. They have to commit an act of gross misconduct or be bad at their jobs, and neither is relevant to Pearson.

 

 

 

Certainly not relevant to me. I have no emotional link to NFP - you said as much yourself when you reminded me that I'd accepted his position might need looking at back in March - though the use of the term 'NFP' sort of suggests that your opinion isn't entirely neutral. I'm also fully willing to believe that the owners may have had no choice but to sack him. Sadly, seeing as there's no evidence whatsoever to support this opinion, I take the same view that any judge would take - namely, that until there's any evidence that he deserved the sack, he didn't deserve it. Prior evidence relating to personalities and previous conduct could point as much towards the owners' guilt as it could Pearson's, so the obvious conclusion is that we fired a successful manager at the peak of his success and haven't yet given a good reason for doing so. Which isn't, generally speaking, a great thing to do.

 

The obvious way out from a fan's viewpoint is for results to justify their decision. After all, fans should have no interest in the ins-and-outs of mundane reality in the City boardroom. Why should we care whether Top enjoys his Monday meeting with Nige or not? If Pierpoint had become City chairman in 99, as he nearly did, would you have backed him over O'Neill because O'Neill would have made his job unpleasant and 'employer always trumps employee'?

 

Another way of looking at it is this: Your argument is that we should be willing to believe the owners were right. Now, I am willing to believe this but - until presented with the right evidence - take the view that the sacking of a successful employee can't be right. This is the standard view taken in English law, and clearly - in this case - by the vast bulk of Leicester fans. You, on the other hand, argue that we shouldn't take this view, but rather be completely open-minded as to the sacking. But is this your actual opinion? Would you say you're as open to the possibility that the owners were to blame as to the possibility that Pearson was to blame? That you don't take either side? Because it looks like you've already come to your conclusion. Is it because you feel you owe a greater allegiance to our owners, or is it because you feel some sense of 'belief' in them? Or is it that you simply never liked 'NFP'?

ffs how many times does NFP have to be explained?

 

You don't actually know that 'gross misconduct' isn't relevant to NFP.

[inckley fox]

A court wouldn't draw an adverse inference about a failure to disclose unless that omission was unreasonable.

There may be many good reasons for non disclosure so assumptions that that tthe sacking is a silly decision because of the non disclosure are rather illogical.

 

You can't support a decision if you've been presented with no reasons for supporting it. Maybe a judge, presented with the reasons, could. Maybe there are non-disclosure clauses at play, in spite of no settlement being reached. But neither I nor you can defend their decision if we're given nothing at all with which to defend it. On the other hand there's a very good reason to criticise it - namely that the man who was sacked was extremely successful.

 

I sincerely hope we do well enough under Ranieri for it to seem irrelevant. Success on the field, inevitably, will be the real test. But as it stands we have neither subsequent success nor any evidence of a shred of Pearson's guilt to go on. Without evidence of non-footballing justifications, all we can look at are the same things we normally look at - the footballing consequences of a decision. And let's hope they're positive. But right now, clearly, it doesn't look like a very clever decision.

[hackneyfox]

The judge (should it ever get that far)  won't jump to conclusions as they will have information from both sides, something we don't have.

I'm assuming they wouldn't have got rid without a very good reason, he had after all given them plenty last season.

[hackneyfox]

On the other hand there's a very good reason to criticise it - namely that the man who was sacked was extremely successful.

 

Opinions, we all have one.

[st albans fox]

No one resigns any more when a contract is involved. Money is more important than principle.

why should NP give away the balance of his contract if he feels he was in the right? All the more reason to force a sacking so he got the maximum payout.

I just think they didn't trust his behaviour and his plan for growing the club slowly didn't match the owners desire to move fast and, they believe, avoid the stress of a relegation fight this campaign.

going back to ink's point about not sacking an employee that's made you loads of money - the really successful businessmen know when someone has gone as far as they think they can go and I think this is the judgement they have made. Let's hope, for all our sakes, that they are right.

[Col city fan]

My mourning period is officially over.

Are you ok mate?

I can give you the name of a good counsellor if you start to get sleepless nights over it all.

[Mike Oxlong]

You can't support a decision if you've been presented with no reasons for supporting it. Maybe a judge, presented with the reasons, could. Maybe there are non-disclosure clauses at play, in spite of no settlement being reached. But neither I nor you can defend their decision if we're given nothing at all with which to defend it. On the other hand there's a very good reason to criticise it - namely that the man who was sacked was extremely successful.

 

I sincerely hope we do well enough under Ranieri for it to seem irrelevant. Success on the field, inevitably, will be the real test. But as it stands we have neither subsequent success nor any evidence of a shred of Pearson's guilt to go on. Without evidence of non-footballing justifications, all we can look at are the same things we normally look at - the footballing consequences of a decision. And let's hope they're positive. But right now, clearly, it doesn't look like a very clever decision.

Beg to differ.

If we are given no reason and we don't know the reason for not being informed, but there are plausible explanations for not being told then we do not have the evidence on which to make a fully informed decision.

As I said before., the failure to disclose is an unknown value rather than a neutral value.

Even if he were the best manager in the world, in the absence of knowledge of the reason for the termination we can't properly evaluate that decision.

[inckley fox]

You 'haven't assumed' but can understand why others, including a court of law would?

You are assuming that it would have been a civilised difference of opinion.

I wouldn't assume that of someone who tells a fan to FOAD and calls a journalist a ****. For me he seems to have anger management problems or can't cope with pressure so it could be that it was far from civilised.

 

The reason I asked whether you had lost faith in NFP is because you now seem to be doing your level best to make up for that and seem to want to blame the owners.

 

I'm not assuming any of these things. I'm just saying that a judge would need more evidence than 'he was a pain in the arse' to support the firing of an employee, unless he committed an act of gross misconduct or did his job badly. Neither of which are the case, so far as we know.

 

Now a judge may well get to see loads of evidence that I won't, but without seeing any evidence to suggest that he committed an act of gross misconduct - in fact, we've seen evidence to the contrary - I'll tend to look at the evidence at hand in the same way as a court of law would, and conclude that I can't support their decision to fire Pearson.

 

If we start doing loads better as a result of his exit, or if a good reason is presented for his sacking, then that would change: But a sacking has to be justified, one way or the other. If we see no justification for a sacking then we can't support it. If we've seen plenty of evidence that the person was doing an excellent job then, naturally, we'll question the decision until given any cause to believe otherwise.

Opinions, we all have one.

 

So you're saying you don't think he was successful last season?

[inckley fox]

Beg to differ.

If we are given no reason and we don't know the reason for not being informed, but there are plausible explanations for not being told then we do not have the evidence on which to make a fully informed decision.

As I said before., the failure to disclose is an unknown value rather than a neutral value.

Even if he were the best manager in the world, in the absence of knowledge of the reason for the termination we can't properly evaluate that decision.

 

Like I said, in this case the judge can come to the conclusion that the club were in the right without any of us knowing how or why he came to that conclusion; but in the absence of a court verdict or the evidence being presented to us, we - as fans - still can't defend the sacking.

 

Without any reason being presented to defend the sacking, it remains what it is - the sacking of a successful manager at his most successful moment. That in itself looks like a bad decision. It's the board's job to justify it, and that's how a court would approach the case too. If you were 3-0 up in a game with Cambiasso playing his heart out, only for him to be taken off on 70 minutes and you to lose 3-4, then you would consider it to be a bad decision until the manager gave a reason to explain it. If he never gave a reason, then you'd continue to see it as a bad decision. Unless it's only me (and the entire English legal system, and clearly most LCFC fans) who thinks this way.

 

Inevitably, as I keep saying, an upturn in results, or the presentation of evidence which points to the owners as having been in the right, would change everything.

[Mike Oxlong]

I'm not assuming any of these things. I'm just saying that a judge would need more evidence than 'he was a pain in the arse' to support the firing of an employee, unless he committed an act of gross misconduct or did his job badly. Neither of which are the case, so far as we know.

 

Now a judge may well get to see loads of evidence that I won't, but without seeing any evidence to suggest that he committed an act of gross misconduct - in fact, we've seen evidence to the contrary - I'll tend to look at the evidence at hand in the same way as a court of law would, and conclude that I can't support their decision to fire Pearson.

 

If we start doing loads better as a result of his exit, or if a good reason is presented for his sacking, then that would change: But a sacking has to be justified, one way or the other. If we see no justification for a sacking then we can't support it. If we've seen plenty of evidence that the person was doing an excellent job then, naturally, we'll question the decision until given any cause to believe otherwise.

 

So you're saying you don't think he was successful last season?

A sacking does have to be justified but not necessarily to you.

If Pearson has been wronged I expect him to take this all the way and obtain damages and a finding or admission of culpability.

We shall see!

[inckley fox]

A sacking does have to be justified but not necessarily to you.

If Pearson has been wronged I expect him to take this all the way and obtain damages and a finding or admission of culpability.

We shall see!

 

I agree Mike, but if it's not justified to me, and there's no evidence of it having been justified to anyone else (e.g. a court of law) then how on earth can I support the decision?

[gurru991]

I don't feel he was overly successful. He was an embarrassment in the PR dept for sure and I really thought he struggled with PL tactics. He played not to lose rather than playing to win. Managers can be fired for that easily

[hackneyfox]

 

 

So you're saying you don't think he was successful last season?

My opinion is that he achieved no more or no less than expected of a team that had been promoted with 102 points.

He certainly wasn't 'extremely successful' in my opinion.

[Corky]

Difference in perspective is a little vague though. Is it a football perspective? Cultural? Life?

 

We'll probably never know which is a shame, whether you agree or disagree with the decision. Clarification would avoid these long posts based on theory.

[inckley fox]

I don't feel he was overly successful. He was an embarrassment in the PR dept for sure and I really thought he struggled with PL tactics. He played not to lose rather than playing to win.

 

Why on earth do you care how good a PR man he was?

 

And 14th in your first season, and the most in-form team come the end of the season, sort of suggests your second claim was wrong too.

[hackneyfox]

Like I said, in this case the judge can come to the conclusion that the club were in the right without any of us knowing how or why he came to that conclusion; but in the absence of a court verdict or the evidence being presented to us, we - as fans - still can't defend the sacking.

 

Without any reason being presented to defend the sacking, it remains what it is - the sacking of a successful manager at his most successful moment. That in itself looks like a bad decision. It's the board's job to justify it, and that's how a court would approach the case too. If you were 3-0 up in a game with Cambiasso playing his heart out, only for him to be taken off on 70 minutes and you to lose 3-4, then you would consider it to be a bad decision until the manager gave a reason to explain it. If he never gave a reason, then you'd continue to see it as a bad decision. Unless it's only me (and the entire English legal system, and clearly most LCFC fans) who thinks this way.

 

Inevitably, as I keep saying, an upturn in results, or the presentation of evidence which points to the owners as having been in the right, would change everything.

Your opinion is that you can't defend the sacking, there are a number who think it may be right, so please don't use 'we' as if you are speaking for us all.