inckley fox Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 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. It was his team that won those 102 points. And his team which won the 96 which got us out of the third tier before that. Looks pretty good to me. To be honest, regardless of whether you like him or not, it's hard to take seriously any view which doesn't consider Pearson to have been an extremely successful Leicester City manager. Unless, of course, you measure success in terms of how nice someone is to the newspapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackneyfox Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 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. Agree that it would have but perhaps the owners are actually protecting NFP's standing in the game by keeping quiet. We just don't know so perhaps we should stop fretting about it until we know more. We have a new manager, time to think about the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inckley fox Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 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. But you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim. It may be right, yes, but we don't know it yet. I understand the appropriate uses of the word 'we'. I was talking in a general sense about how people logically view guilt and, as a person, felt I had the right to use the first person plural. I couldn't care less whether you agreed with my particular interpretation of that logic, much like Churchill couldn't have cared less about conscientious objectors when he said 'we shall fight them on the beaches', or King couldn't have cared less about the KKK when he said 'we shall never surrender'. Your view is based on your faith in the owners and your distrust of Pearson, rather than any of the actual evidence at hand. When I used the collective 'we' to talk about logical thought, it may be the case that I'm not including you, or any of the people who share your opinion. You can get a linguist to explain it to you if you like although, in the words of Alan Partridge, I suspect they've got bigger fish to fry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackneyfox Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 It was his team that won those 102 points. And his team which won the 96 which got us out of the third tier before that. Looks pretty good to me. To be honest, regardless of whether you like him or not, it's hard to take seriously any view which doesn't consider Pearson to have been an extremely successful Leicester City manager. Unless, of course, you measure success in terms of how nice someone is to the newspapers. We'll be going round in circles on this till the season starts and beyond. He was a good manager who could perhaps have achieved the same results earlier if it wasn't for tactical mistakes, we don't know that next season wouldn't have ended in tears. You questioned him last season and now seem to be assauging your guilt by going too far the other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 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. I think you're confusing the justification that would be required in litigation with justification as a more general matter of public disclosure. It would be great if we knew. We could evaluate the decision. We don't know. You agreed with my post yesterday that there are a range of valid reasons for non disclosure.if that is so how can it be right to assume that what may be a reasonable failure to disclose renders the decision per se a bad one. Does Nigel's failure to disclose make the dismissal a right decision ? No. There may be good reason for his failure to go public. There's no point me banging on further about this. I think you are capable of understanding my point and if you don't then you're never going to. That's not meant in a dismissive way. I just don't intend to get stuck on the roundabout going over the same stuff again and again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackneyfox Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 But you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim. It may be right, yes, but we don't know it yet. I understand the appropriate uses of the word 'we'. I was talking in a general sense about how people logically view guilt and, as a person, felt I had the right to use the first person plural. I couldn't care less whether you agreed with my particular interpretation of that logic, much like Churchill couldn't have cared less about conscientious objectors when he said 'we shall fight them on the beaches', or King couldn't have cared less about the KKK when he said 'we shall never surrender'. Your view is based on your faith in the owners and your distrust of Pearson, rather than any of the actual evidence at hand. When I used the collective 'we' to talk about logical thought, it may be the case that I'm not including you, or any of the people who share your opinion. You can get a linguist to explain it to you if you like although, in the words of Alan Partridge, I suspect they've got bigger fish to fry. inckley, Churchill and King superb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 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? You don't have to support the decision. Nor should you. But equally you shouldn't consider that his good track record in the absence of publicising the reason makes it a bad decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inckley fox Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 I think you're confusing the justification that would be required in litigation with justification as a more general matter of public disclosure. It would be great if we knew. We could evaluate the decision. We don't know. You agreed with my post yesterday that there are a range of valid reasons for non disclosure.if that is so how can it be right to assume that what may be a reasonable failure to disclose renders the decision per se a bad one. Does Nigel's failure to disclose make the dismissal a right decision ? No. There may be good reason for his failure to go public. There's no point me banging on further about this. I think you are capable of understanding my point and if you don't then you're never going to. That's not meant in a dismissive way. I just don't intend to get stuck on the roundabout going over the same stuff again and again. No, that's fair enough. I never take these discussions personally and I've enjoyed responding to your posts. And yes, obviously I understand what you're saying. Maybe I needed to explain myself better. I was saying that, as a member of the public, I like to make my judgements with a similar perspective to that of a court judge - in this case, assumption of someone's innocence until they are proven to be guilty of something. As I see it, the board made the call so the onus is on them to provide the proof. If they don't then that's their decision, but if they were to maintain their silence the decision would be open to criticism if things were to go wrong on the pitch. Put simply, if a person is fired I don't think 'I bet they deserved it', I think 'unless a good reason is given, I have to assume they didn't deserve it'. Usually the reason's pretty easy to find, in this case it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 Your view is based on your faith in the owners and your distrust of Pearson, rather than any of the actual evidence at hand. When I used the collective 'we' to talk about logical thought, it may be the case that I'm not including you, or any of the people who share your opinion. You can get a linguist to explain it to you if you like although, in the words of Alan Partridge, I suspect they've got bigger fish to fry. It not based on faith and mistrust at all. It's based on past experience.The owners had countless opportunities to sack him last season but didn't which suggests they weren't desperate to sack him.Pearson has a history of stroppiness and a falling out with people. It's not a huge leap of imagination to assume he's spat the dummy again.Now I have no proof I'll admit but this seems more likely to me than the King of Thailand did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoareyaaa Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 No, that's fair enough. I never take these discussions personally and I've enjoyed responding to your posts. And yes, obviously I understand what you're saying. Maybe I needed to explain myself better. I was saying that, as a member of the public, I like to make my judgements with a similar perspective to that of a court judge - in this case, assumption of someone's innocence until they are proven to be guilty of something. As I see it, the board made the call so the onus is on them to provide the proof. If they don't then that's their decision, but if they were to maintain their silence the decision would be open to criticism if things were to go wrong on the pitch. Put simply, if a person is fired I don't think 'I bet they deserved it', I think 'unless a good reason is given, I have to assume they didn't deserve it'. Usually the reason's pretty easy to find, in this case it isn't. Yeah but the court will be seeing more of the actual topic than you will so your opinion is useless, no matter which perspective you look at it. It's done now, move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inckley fox Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 It not based on faith and mistrust at all. It's based on past experience. The owners had countless opportunities to sack him last season but didn't which suggests they weren't desperate to sack him. Pearson has a history of stroppiness and a falling out with people. It's not a huge leap of imagination to assume he's spat the dummy again. Now I have no proof I'll admit but this seems more likely to me than the King of Thailand did it. Which nobody at any point has suggested. Although at one point you lost an argument miserably and claimed that they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 No, that's fair enough. I never take these discussions personally and I've enjoyed responding to your posts. And yes, obviously I understand what you're saying. Maybe I needed to explain myself better. I was saying that, as a member of the public, I like to make my judgements with a similar perspective to that of a court judge - in this case, assumption of someone's innocence until they are proven to be guilty of something. As I see it, the board made the call so the onus is on them to provide the proof. If they don't then that's their decision, but if they were to maintain their silence the decision would be open to criticism if things were to go wrong on the pitch. Put simply, if a person is fired I don't think 'I bet they deserved it', I think 'unless a good reason is given, I have to assume they didn't deserve it'. Usually the reason's pretty easy to find, in this case it isn't. And so back to the point that there may be entirely proper reasons for non disclosure on both sides. Hence the distinction between the requirement to demonstrate justification in litigation as against the real world. Consequently you are in an entirely different position to that of a judge who would be entitled to and would get full disclosure whereas you/I/everyone else is not. A judge would be fully informed. We are not. Fair play to you though, despite me saying I was getting off the roundabout I keep returning for another spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 Which nobody at any point has suggested. Although at one point you lost an argument miserably and claimed that they did. Opinions, we've all got one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank to be Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 If rumours from a lot of people in the media are to be believed neither does Pearson still. Funny how I haven't seen anything of the sort. Nice groundwork being laid to use against the owners at the next opportunity, I assume? All to be presented as 'fact' in future when the reality in the present is that we don't know what's gone one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadt Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 Wookie not a fan of anyone else but Pearson shocker . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 Maybe, maybe not. Is this going to be a long term project for you wookie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wymsey Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 Feel quite sorry for Pearson's Wife; got a Son who can't be trusted, and a Husband who's unemployed and probably giving his Son a bollocking/the silent treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadt Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 Feel quite sorry for Pearson's Wife; got a Son who can't be trusted, and a Husband who's unemployed and probably giving his Son a bollocking/the silent treatment. I can imagine pearson is irritable without something to focus on, I doubt he's on JSA though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue army boys Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 People need to get over Pearson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wymsey Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 I can imagine pearson is irritable without something to focus on, I doubt he's on JSA though Imagine Pearson wearing a LCFC shirt and cap waiting to see a Job Centre advisor. Daily Mail would be all over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountesthorpeFox Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 People need to get over Pearson. what? are people completely lost on what a great job he did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinowe Soorie Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 Has Pearson been sacked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 Has Pearson been sacked? One sucked and one sacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinowe Soorie Posted 14 July 2015 Share Posted 14 July 2015 One sucked and one sacked. Who knew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.