Finnegan Posted 1 July 2015 Posted 1 July 2015 They were only safe, patient investors when Pearson was in charge, the time they had here with the only other manager they employed we were reckless, impatient investors who thought you could throw money at problems to sort them out. The assertion is not silly at all, you only have to look at the last time we got rid of Pearson to see just how difficult it can be to attract a decent manager. Do you really think no other owner would be interested in buying LCFC at the minute? We're a club with a relatively low wage budget, debt free, young squad, (had) an extremely talented young manager and have just finished in a very decent position in our first year in the Premiership, I think you are massively underselling us and I actually think we'd be extremely attractive to many people at this time. Why is Pearson allowed to learn from his mistakes but the owners are destined to repeat them? The idea that Pearson reigned in the spending is absurd. If he was told he could spend fifty million he would have, you operate to a budget you're given. A manager doesn't dictate budget to the board, it's dictated to him. The owners got burned trusting Sven and aren't willing to repeat the mistake and fair play to them. Are we suddenly forgetting the ample good will gestures they've given back to the fans over the last few years? We could have infinitely worse owners. They've been backed in to a corner because Pearson couldn't keep his erratic behaviour in check. I'm massively disappointed and from a football position it's gutting. But Pearson is a grown adult and shouldn't be jeopardising his career acting the fool.
Guest MattP Posted 1 July 2015 Posted 1 July 2015 Why is Pearson allowed to learn from his mistakes but the owners are destined to repeat them? The idea that Pearson reigned in the spending is absurd. If he was told he could spend fifty million he would have, you operate to a budget you're given. A manager doesn't dictate budget to the board, it's dictated to him. The owners got burned trusting Sven and aren't willing to repeat the mistake and fair play to them. Are we suddenly forgetting the ample good will gestures they've given back to the fans over the last few years? We could have infinitely worse owners. They've been backed in to a corner because Pearson couldn't keep his erratic behaviour in check. I'm massively disappointed and from a football position it's gutting. But Pearson is a grown adult and shouldn't be jeopardising his career acting the fool. Sorry Finners but this is just total nonsense until you have some serious inside information. Pearson worked to a budget that included reigning in the spending, I don't see how that is up for debate. As for your comment on the owners I don't know how you can claim this unless you know them personally. Aen't willing to repeat the mistake? This looks exactly like they are prepared to repeat the mistake, they have got rid of a manager who delivers consistent success for what could be abother total shot in the dark. This is pretty much the exact line of thinking that was taken when we got rid of him last time around. What evidence do you have they have been backed into a corner here? Last week no one was talking about sacking him at all, virtually everything had been forgotton and we'd even been receiving praise for how we had handled the Thailand situation from a press who hates us.
indierich06 Posted 1 July 2015 Posted 1 July 2015 And I thought it was the owners who gave Pearson the job. No credit to them, but you credit Martin George for bringing managers on board. You seem a little confused. And it was them who pushed him out in the first place. And they only reappointed him when they realised they couldn't attract a whole host of the big-name managers they wanted. So, no - I don't really credit them with giving him his job back, as he should never have lost it in the first place. Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut - I think we're about to see how blind this pair really are.
ScouseFox Posted 1 July 2015 Posted 1 July 2015 Some overreactions getting on the verge of hysteria here now really. I'm disappointed in the sacking but I don't understand anyone that can't see why it's happened. Just to refresh, on top of having us rock bottom for half the season, Pearson called one journo an ostrich, another a less polite term, told a fan to **** off and die, had a public row with Lineker / MOTD and pinned a player down in front of a full stadium and "playfully" choked him. Now his son has just been involved in an offensive sex tape on a good will trip, post-season. What manager would get away with all of that? It's borderline Mike Bassett stuff. Our form over the last couple of months of the season was brilliant but acting like he's the only gaffer in the world who could have achieved that is excessive. Nowhere have the owners claimed it's a footballing decision and they think our final league standing wasn't good enough. They just don't trust him to avoid scandal and that's fair enough. Agree with this. ouch bad times finno
Captain... Posted 1 July 2015 Author Posted 1 July 2015 Probably need a new signature mate. That any better for you?
FLINTHAMFC Posted 1 July 2015 Posted 1 July 2015 Speak for yourself on that. Nige has been the central point of the the success of this football club over the last few years, not the owners, Nigel already had a team in the Championship play offs when they arrived and back then he had barely any money to spend, a year after he had gone we had spunked about 90 million up the wall and managed to somehow drop further down the league thanks to the decision making of our wonderful owners. If I had my way I'd happily see them go and keep Nigel here, even more so given every decision they have made that doesn't involve Nigel Pearson being our manager has been tantamount to disastrous. He has totally got these blokes out the shit, if it wasn't for him they would probably still be sat half way up the Championship with the debt of a third World country and he's been dismissed via a phone call after doing the best job of any manager since MON. I just hope no one dares ever bring up again how our owners value 'respect and trust' again, they've treated Nigel with as much respect as Tom Hopper treated that girl licking his ringpiece. Pretty much my thoughts there. I can only see a period of uncertainty ahead and a squad of disillusioned players.
Captain... Posted 1 July 2015 Author Posted 1 July 2015 And it was them who pushed him out in the first place. And they only reappointed him when they realised they couldn't attract a whole host of the big-name managers they wanted. So, no - I don't really credit them with giving him his job back, as he should never have lost it in the first place. Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut - I think we're about to see how blind this pair really are. Firstly, Pearson quit, that was due to Mandy and Hoos letting Hull speak to him, so they could get someone higher profile in trying to sell the club, Sousa was sniffing around long before the Thais were involved.
Strokes Posted 1 July 2015 Posted 1 July 2015 Some great posts in here, I'm finding it difficult to add to matt p and inkley fox sentiments. Obviously I hope the next appointment works out and the club continue to improve but it seemed a silly, unnecessary risk to me. The owners have got to be very shrewd/lucky to continue their reputation as responsible owners.
hackneyfox Posted 1 July 2015 Posted 1 July 2015 I know a Man United fan who didn't rate Ferguson for the same reason, he enjoyed the 15 league titles etc but on occasions they didn't win a match for 2-3 weeks. On occasions we didn't win a match for 2-3 months.
indierich06 Posted 1 July 2015 Posted 1 July 2015 Firstly, Pearson quit, that was due to Mandy and Hoos letting Hull speak to him, so they could get someone higher profile in trying to sell the club, Sousa was sniffing around long before the Thais were involved. Yes, he quit and took another job because they pushed him out and he didn't feel valued or that he had any job security. They clearly wouldn't have stuck with him once they took over the club, or Mandaric wouldn't have been courting Paolo Sousa as his 'special guest' just before they took over - why would Mandaric give a shit about replacing a manager for a club he was just about to sell, unless it was a condition from the buyers? They may not have sacked him, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think the whole reason he left the club wasn't down to the lack of respect he was shown, or the lack of effort made to keep him.
Corky Posted 1 July 2015 Posted 1 July 2015 I think we need to wait and see the replacement before totally writing off the owners. I'm not convinced by their choices (if it's true Pearson was their fourth choice) but sacking doesn't automatically mean we'll fall apart. I don't believe Pearson is that easy to replace either. We don't have a defined style. Swansea almost always appoint young, up and coming managers. Stoke stuck with one man for years then replaced him with another solid Premier League manager. Similarly, Palace have brought in two stable top flight managers since promotion. Ours have gone from young, suave coach, to experienced big name, then on to old school type manager. Usually, we change manager at a low point on the pitch. Well, currently we aren't at that stage, optimism was high and new players are being added, so it's a different atmosphere for managerial change. Both Pearson and the owners have a lot to thank each other for.
possiblygeorge Posted 1 July 2015 Posted 1 July 2015 Sacking Nigel because of his son's stupidity (if that is the case) is like your misses getting a divorce because your son shat in his hands and smeared it all over the wall. Yes, that's my analogy.
Captain... Posted 1 July 2015 Author Posted 1 July 2015 Yes, he quit and took another job because they pushed him out and he didn't feel valued or that he had any job security. They clearly wouldn't have stuck with him once they took over the club, or Mandaric wouldn't have been courting Paolo Sousa as his 'special guest' just before they took over - why would Mandaric give a shit about replacing a manager for a club he was just about to sell, unless it was a condition from the buyers? They may not have sacked him, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think the whole reason he left the club wasn't down to the lack of respect he was shown, or the lack of effort made to keep him. From Mandaric and Hoos, if you think it was due to the lack of respect shown him by the potential buyers of the club, which nobody had heard of at the time, then why would he come back and work for them? Or is he a man with no principles all of a sudden? I'm not saying it was in no way related, but the reason Pearson quit was down to Mandaric's handling of him, if the Thais had any hand in appointing Sousa, do you not think they would have given him a bit more time?
Vestan Pance Posted 1 July 2015 Posted 1 July 2015 I think this situation is very easy to understand. The vast majority wanted those 3 gone from the club, one of them is Nigels son, if he agrees with the clubs decision then he is in an awkward position with his family, if he sides with his family then he is in a very difficult position with LCFC. When this story first broke I was convinced it would make his position as a father or as a manager of LCFC impossible. He really had only one choice who to support. I think this will work out best for both parties.
SpacedX Posted 1 July 2015 Posted 1 July 2015 Sacking Nigel because of his son's stupidity (if that is the case) is like your misses getting a divorce because your son shat in his hands and smeared it all over the wall. Yes, that's my analogy. And it's a shit one
Captain... Posted 1 July 2015 Author Posted 1 July 2015 Sacking Nigel because of his son's stupidity (if that is the case) is like your misses getting a divorce because your son shat in his hands and smeared it all over the wall. Yes, that's my analogy. It was clearly for an accumulation of things, and the final one may have been that, but it wouldn't be because of his son's behaviour, but for how Nigel reacted to their decision. If your son smeared shit on your girlfriends walls, and you did nothing about it and then berated her for kicking him out the house, then you will find yourself single pretty damn quick.
Strokes Posted 1 July 2015 Posted 1 July 2015 It was clearly for an accumulation of things, and the final one may have been that, but it wouldn't be because of his son's behaviour, but for how Nigel reacted to their decision. If your son smeared shit on your girlfriends walls, and you did nothing about it and then berated her for kicking him out the house, then you will find yourself single pretty damn quick. How old is the son in this analogy?
indierich06 Posted 1 July 2015 Posted 1 July 2015 I think this situation is very easy to understand. The vast majority wanted those 3 gone from the club, one of them is Nigels son, if he agrees with the clubs decision then he is in an awkward position with his family, if he sides with his family then he is in a very difficult position with LCFC. When this story first broke I was convinced it would make his position as a father or as a manager of LCFC impossible. He really had only one choice who to support. I think this will work out best for both parties. Not at all, if it was my son who had been involved in something like that, I'd tell him that he'd made his bed and he should lie in it, I'd also be extremely angry that he had jeopardised my position at work due to his and his colleagues abject stupidity. I also wouldn't have had any objections to the ruling if I was James Pearson either, and I wouldn't want to put my own father under any further pressure at work or for him to suffer due to my stupidity.
The Horse's Mouth Posted 1 July 2015 Posted 1 July 2015 Why is Pearson allowed to learn from his mistakes but the owners are destined to repeat them? The idea that Pearson reigned in the spending is absurd. If he was told he could spend fifty million he would have, you operate to a budget you're given. A manager doesn't dictate budget to the board, it's dictated to him. The owners got burned trusting Sven and aren't willing to repeat the mistake and fair play to them. Are we suddenly forgetting the ample good will gestures they've given back to the fans over the last few years? We could have infinitely worse owners. They've been backed in to a corner because Pearson couldn't keep his erratic behaviour in check. I'm massively disappointed and from a football position it's gutting. But Pearson is a grown adult and shouldn't be jeopardising his career acting the fool.
Captain... Posted 1 July 2015 Author Posted 1 July 2015 How old is the son in this analogy? I would say 22, lets call him James, and just to add some context is also shit at football.
fuchsntf Posted 1 July 2015 Posted 1 July 2015 Not at all, if it was my son who had been involved in something like that, I'd tell him that he'd made his bed and he should lie in it, I'd also be extremely angry that he had jeopardised my position at work due to his and his colleagues abject stupidity. I also wouldn't have had any objections to the ruling if I was James Pearson either, and I wouldn't want to put my own father under any further pressure at work or for him to suffer due to my stupidity. exactly, and that is why, I cant believe the son ,father, management issue is the reason for him being sacked.If it was, and Nigel was stubborn and dropped inconvenient comments, then Nigel would have shown professional imaturity. I wouldnt taint him with such cr$p.I dont go either for this ' difference In culture' malarky.Thais know more than anybody the ways of the world, lets not insult them by claiming their innocence on handling strange outbursts and honourable dispositions.They have ran an International business for quite a few years. I go for the idea, they just didnt see eye to eye for a long while, Pearson ignored it, but individuals in management, felt they needed to show who owns the club, personallity clash most likely. If management, have sacked him because of actions they thought would put their KP brand into disrepute, then they dont belong in the football world, what would they have done with, Cloughie who slagged off fans and hit a couple in different incidents, criticised his management on more occasions, had conflict with opposing players, similar, for Revie, Ferguson, Morinho, Wenger, J.Stein, Beckenbauer, Rehagel, Cryuff...etc, many also having heavy run-in with the press, turning down interviews with the press, and telling their different football commitees where to get off, and yes vocabulary just has bad as Pearsons. Another side show is that the media , found a bone and love gnawering on it. .
Strokes Posted 1 July 2015 Posted 1 July 2015 I would say 22, lets call him James, and just to add some context is also shit at football.
Mike Oxlong Posted 1 July 2015 Posted 1 July 2015 Beats me how anyone can come to conclusions about whether the owners have/have not done the right thing without knowing the facts of the reasons for the dismissal
AyewJoking Posted 1 July 2015 Posted 1 July 2015 The Thais have dug themselves a hole. Replacement manager better be amazing otherwise we have gone backwards.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.