Jace Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 I've asked if Okazaki was 1 of the 3 selected players but this isn't known but my gut feeling is he is and Okazaki is a player bought in raise our international profile that Pearson disagrees with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narborough_fox Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 Would make sense as to why Walsh was talking about him rather than Pearson when he was announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KFS Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 Would make sense as to why Walsh was talking about him rather than Pearson when he was announced. Doesn't make sense, Nige confirmed in press conference before the season ended that we wanted Okazaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narborough_fox Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 Doesn't make sense, Nige confirmed in press conference before the season ended that we wanted Okazaki Didn't know that, well that's shown that if you put 2 and 2 together most of the time you get 15. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcfcsnow Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 Here's my theory. 29 June Hiddink resigns. Top "sheet, I better ring Nige". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_w Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 So three days ago Hiddink resigns, two days ago we sack Nigel, today we approach Hiddink. I bet it's because Nigel Pearson isn't honourable enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuchsntf Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 Speak for yourself - I'm a complete Celt...(at least I think that's what they told me).proves my point really just a bunch of nomads with no real homes, who just liked nothing better than arguing and fighting among themselves.Mind you pretty good merchants, sell your stuff then slay your neighbours..You Coriletavi have alot to answer for, explains the fod statement from NP, and that strangle hold, his first words and actions he must of learnt, when 1st walking the streets of leicester... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 Doesn't make sense, Nige confirmed in press conference before the season ended that we wanted Okazaki Didn't know that either that puts a backward spin on my theory maybe he wasn't 1 of the players if it is true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deep blue Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 I've been told today (unable to provide source) the reason why Pearson was dismissed today, now like all rumours we will have to take it with a pinch of salt I cannot be 100% its true, personally I believe there could well be truth in it because to me it explains what has happened much better than the current rumours circulating about it being about James Pearson. Anyway the story I have heard is that there has been bust up between Pearson and the owners over the potential signing of 3 new players this week, the owners wanted these players to sign and Pearson doesn't think they are suitable. It appears Vichai and Top feel Pearson is too difficult and stubborn to work with over a number of issues as the previous falling out was about Ulloa as they felt he should be playing and Pearson felt it should be up to himself who picks the team and his decision shouldn't be questioned. If this is genuine then I am 100% behind Pearson and to be Vichai and Top are out of order. I have been studying people's theories v carefully. Am convinced it has nothing to do with his son, but more likely because of an explosive bust-up about stratrgic matters, such as the pace at which we should aim to reach the top 4. This is in the same area that you suggest. Your explanation also coincides with the rumour someone put out - that the owners wanted to meet Sako's wage demands and sign him, but Pearson didn't. Your explanation is looking v plausible to me, not least because it was without doing an unplanned move. Very sad, as the owners have appeared to leave football decision go Pearson so far, and should have continued to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 I thought it was about ambition and nige's possible conservative approach. But then i took 'perspective ' to be about morals etc. Guess you can take either What is certain is that if the owners are prepared to spend big to try and guarantee survival and Nigel wanted to follow a Similar route to last season with a tweak here and there, I'm not surprised he has gone. The stakes are high. I suspect the bit about the owners getting involved in selection matters is probably untrue but the rest stacks up to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 I assume it's a catalogue of daftness off the pitch. The relationship with the media, with the owners etc. It all matters. With the three plonkers in Thailand tipping it all over the edge. I have no idea why the owners have said enough. But I guess it's not an isolated thing. I tend to agree. I think his stupidity has shot him, deservedly, in the foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 I've been told today (unable to provide source) the reason why Pearson was dismissed today, now like all rumours we will have to take it with a pinch of salt I cannot be 100% its true, personally I believe there could well be truth in it because to me it explains what has happened much better than the current rumours circulating about it being about James Pearson. Anyway the story I have heard is that there has been bust up between Pearson and the owners over the potential signing of 3 new players this week, the owners wanted these players to sign and Pearson doesn't think they are suitable. It appears Vichai and Top feel Pearson is too difficult and stubborn to work with over a number of issues as the previous falling out was about Ulloa as they felt he should be playing and Pearson felt it should be up to himself who picks the team and his decision shouldn't be questioned. If this is genuine then I am 100% behind Pearson and to be Vichai and Top are out of order. Hope to god that isn't true. We are absolutely ****ed if that's the case even if Pearson's replacement does come in and do well - because that's a model that will eventually fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 proves my point really just a bunch of nomads with no real homes, who just liked nothing better than arguing and fighting among themselves.Mind you pretty good merchants, sell your stuff then slay your neighbours.. You Coriletavi have alot to answer for, explains the fod statement from NP, and that strangle hold, his first words and actions he must of learnt, when 1st walking the streets of leicester... There were many Celtic tribes, on both sides of the border. I take it you are from Ratae Corieltauvorum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 Hope to god that isn't true. We are absolutely ****ed if that's the case even if Pearson's replacement does come in and do well - because that's a model that will eventually fail. I know to me we knowing what Pearsons like when he's challenged about anything or told what to do he doesn't take kindly to it and makes much more sense than to be about his son. Its the incident with being challenged with playing Ulloa all over again except this time its pre season and the owners feel the damage of losing him can be repaired I suppose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deep blue Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 I have been studying people's theories v carefully. Am convinced it has nothing to do with his son, but more likely because of an explosive bust-up about stratrgic matters, such as the pace at which we should aim to reach the top 4. This is in the same area that you suggest. Your explanation also coincides with the rumour someone put out - that the owners wanted to meet Sako's wage demands and sign him, but Pearson didn't. Your explanation is looking v plausible to me, not least because it was without doing an unplanned move. Very sad, as the owners have appeared to leave football decision go Pearson so far, and should have continued to do so. Apologies for errors in last 2 paras. My tablet sometimes runs away with itself.What I meant - the sacking was clearly unplanned (there are too many pointers to suggest otherwise), and the unresolvable differences were to do with strategy (speed of progress, transfers, etc). I suspect Pearson dug his heels in and may even have been too blunt in his words. Pearson's "bad behaviour" during the season, and the Thailand problems, perhaps built up intolerant feelings towards Pearson and one more falling-out was the final straw for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shailen Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 The more I think about it, the more I think it isn't to do with James Pearson. For me the owners have never given the same leeway to Pearson as they did with SGE. Maybe this lack of trust may have hampered their relationship causing Pearson to try and give an ultimatum to get control back. If the Ulloa and the signings story is true, then it makes complete sense that the two parties were not in harmony. Hence, we have a case of owners trying to run a football club. If this was the case, I'm sorry but the owners have got it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 I have to admit before posting what I had heard I was thinking shall I post it on foxestalk its probably going to get the usual prove it otherwise or its bollocks comments but Im glad many of you see the the logic in it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 if it was directly connected to the Thailand fiasco, why wasn't NP fired immediately after the trip - or even directly after the three players got the bullet? Something definitely else is at play here. (Merely speculating.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 if it was directly connected to the Thailand fiasco, why wasn't NP fired immediately after the trip - or even directly after the three players got the bullet? Something definitely else is at play here. (Merely speculating.) Exactly Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bettsj2 Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 if it was directly connected to the Thailand fiasco, why wasn't NP fired immediately after the trip - or even directly after the three players got the bullet? Something definitely else is at play here. (Merely speculating.) Could it just be:-Thai incident Time passed Players sacked Pearson kicks off Time passed Pearson sacked Maybe it was just them going through the proper process needed to fire someone on both occasions. It was a similar amount of time that passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narborough_fox Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 if it was directly connected to the Thailand fiasco, why wasn't NP fired immediately after the trip - or even directly after the three players got the bullet? Something definitely else is at play here. (Merely speculating.) As you say, it was almost exactly 2 weeks after the trio were sacked that Pearson was sacked. If he was that annoyed/upset by it then I'm sure he'd have kicked up a fuss about it way before that. I don't think we'll ever get the truth out of why Nigel was sacked but I the more I think about it the more I think it isn't related to the Thailand incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_w Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 if it was directly connected to the Thailand fiasco, why wasn't NP fired immediately after the trip - or even directly after the three players got the bullet? Something definitely else is at play here. (Merely speculating.) Looks increasingly like they just wanted Hiddink to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 Looks increasingly like they just wanted Hiddink to me. I'd agree with that too and any excuse that came up would be perfect timing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagworthblue Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 if it was directly connected to the Thailand fiasco, why wasn't NP fired immediately after the trip - or even directly after the three players got the bullet? Something definitely else is at play here. (Merely speculating.) I must admit I'm starting to think Thaigate has been used as a smokescreen. I'm coming around to the view that the owners just felt we needed a higher profile man at the helm which is why i've taken no notice of the lennon rumours. It happened too quick, over the phone, too late but yet the overall timing was awful. I have a feeling work has been ongoing behind the scenes to see who else is available, have some covert talks and when the opportunity arose, they moved fast to get him out and Hiddink in if reports are true. I don't think they would put the progress at such risk for anything less. Maybe they held fire until some key deals were resolved first. (i.e Okazaki) I've backed both Pearson and the owners and this is purely me thinking out load but if this is true, I think they have done this for purely commercial reasons, for status and Brand optimisation adopting a Ambramovic / Man City type model and they felt correctly that this model and Pearson are incompatible. However, I think the way we were building under Pearson was a fantastic brick by brick footballing growth model but a slow rise doesn't have the Brand exposure they crave. I remain behind the owners as I don't know this but kinda feel I liked the way we were doing it, gradually. The high profile model they appear to prefer will need a lot of cash spent quickly and the right man at the top otherwise it could go terribly wrong. My concern is that under fair play we can't do what Abramovwich did and they are not as Rich, not as Rich as most of the premier league owners as is happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indierich06 Posted 2 July 2015 Share Posted 2 July 2015 I tend to agree. I think his stupidity has shot him, deservedly, in the foot. Wish someone would shoot you, deservedly, in the foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.