inckley fox Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 this could be the longest quote ever :-) I drafted a whole response and my laptop overheated and cut out so here we go again.... My get out of jail free card was the reference to broken trust. Yes people make the same mistakes more than once (i'm a prime example :-) ) But over time, the amount of fact builds, trends build to the point people can often have enough factual and circumstantial evidence to form a correct opinion. The more people study and look for the detail and consider over time, the more accurate a decision they are likely to come to. I am currently shutting out the conjecture of others (but listening to reasoned opinion) but internally fighting with myself as to whether the owners strategic growth plan is too aggressive or needs to be aggressive to succeed. It annoys me as I crave the info they have, I crave seeing the books as I live for such strategies - it is my career after all. So right now, I can only go on the facts I have within the below bullets, their record since joining the club, their success in their parent business proof of any learnings they have made in what is an alien industry to them. previous industry case studies and the environment at the time compared with the environment today I am currently of the conclusion that although their strategy appears high risk, there is sufficient mitigation in place and the backstop is their underlying wealth and the investments they have made to date reduces the risk of cut and run. They have shown in the past they have dug deep to cover the cost of their mistakes and took advise from football people in the recruitment of Nigel Pearson rather than another big spending big name. I was gutted that they sacked Pearson as I was supportive of the brick by brick building strategy in place. They now appear to feel the foundations are secure enough to go more aggressively to get to where they want to be and their strategy has therefore moved on from brick by brick to an extent. it is clear they are trying to globalise the brand of King Power and LCFC, and they feel to be taken seriously, they have to show the globe in a way people understand - high profile leaders and the spending of money. They may also feel that Team Pearson carried too much risk of relegation and wasn't as ambitious as they would like it to be. My experience tells me - if you are going to be aggressive, you have to follow it through, however hard things get, however the risk increases, if you pull out half way you lose.I don't think they will do that. Look to be fair the jury is out - it's either too aggressive too soon or it's necessary aggression and I'm torn. For now I don't have access to enough fact, there haven't been enough poor decisions made, for me to have my trust broken. It seems they are now taking advise of football men like Paulo Sousa, John Rudkin and others to make key decisions on footballing matters so that is at least a learning albeit are these people making good decisions? and are they right to put their trust in them? So I have to trust them to get this right until the trust is broken. I can see the merits of a positive aggressive strategy but equally I am well ware of the risk but feel sufficiently confident it is mitigated. My final point is an apology. I was bleary eyed and rushing ahead of taking my U9s training this am and re-reading it, it comes across as very patronising and it wasn't meant to be. There are plenty of people on here that are fully able to form their own opinions and base it on a number of relevant criteria. There are some however, that are emotion lead and I can be too so in effect, it was an attempt to get those people to think clearly as well as re-confirming in my own head that I was forming my position based on reasoned judgement rather than emotion. I am going to back the Thais now until the trust is broken because if we all get behind them, the chances of LCFC success is greater than if we are divided. **** me - that's enough for now cos I sound like a right tw@at. No, I enjoyed your response and think you're being pretty balanced here. I've not decided that the board have got it horribly wrong either, I can't, I'm just observing that it would appear to have all the hallmarks of a bad decision by the board. You've come up with an assessment which leads you to be undecided and, perhaps, edging towards understanding the board and I can see clearly how you've come to your conclusions. My problem would be with people who have decided that they like the decision because either they love the board and think that rich businessmen automatically know more about football than everyone else, or because they never especially liked Pearson. But whether it's a good decision or not, I'm sure we both sincerely hope that it all works out well. And I've seen very few people, even his most devout supporters, saying anything to the contrary. Long may it last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagworthblue Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 No, I enjoyed your response and think you're being pretty balanced here. I've not decided that the board have got it horribly wrong either, I can't, I'm just observing that it would appear to have all the hallmarks of a bad decision by the board. You've come up with an assessment which leads you to be undecided and, perhaps, edging towards understanding the board and I can see clearly how you've come to your conclusions. My problem would be with people who have decided that they like the decision because either they love the board and think that rich businessmen automatically know more about football than everyone else, or because they never especially liked Pearson. But whether it's a good decision or not, I'm sure we both sincerely hope that it all works out well. And I've seen very few people, even his most devout supporters, saying anything to the contrary. Long may it last. spot on mate - My biggest gripe apart from old age pensioners choosing to shop at peak times and moan when they have all week to go when it is quiet is people having blind faith or having an opinion that is purely emotion lead who aren't able to back up or provide reason behind their view. We are all prone to it though so I'm not going to sound too godly. I shoot from the hip sometimes too but I have seen people on here continue to provide their opinion over hours then days but not back it up. if anyone reads my posts on why Pearson was sacked, my views have changed over time as more information has come to light so that in itself shows that I made snap judgements as I was caught up in the emotion. I have however, been prepared to admit where I too have been wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inckley fox Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 put it like this bud, It's my career of 25 years albeit in a different industry but I make decisions involving big big £ms (sound like a tw@t again I know) and having read articles, studied the owners business dealing and past case studies I am not sufficiently equipped with enough information to decide if they are right or wrong to do what they are doing and neither my good friend are you. Hence I base my current judgement on what is available, as do you and we draw different conclusions. This in effect proves my point that we lack the detail to be sure. My default therefore is to categorise and assess the risk and my conclusion is that if the strategy is right or wrong, the risk is reasonably well mitigated and underwritten - it is not completely mitigated but you will agree, i am sure, that you have to take some unmitigated risk to achieve anything and certainly to grow. Look time will tell and only then will we know but for now my trust in the owners has been challenged but is not yet broken Of course we all have jobs, and some of us will be very successful at them, some of us won't. None of us have run a football club and even if we had, there are very few people out there who have made a good enough job of it for their opinion to be worth listening to. Elsom, Mandaric, Tan, Maxwell, Venkys, Juan Soler among many others - all were very successful and understood what high risk and low risk strategies were, and used consultants, and knew how to make money. But I couldn't care less for any of their opinions on how to run a football club. All football club owners will have moved big big £ms at some point or another, and their consultants and advisers will have done much the same, but it doesn't stop them making absurd decisions which result in the immediate decline of their clubs, and on a spectacularly regular basis. The assumption that being good at running a successful chain of shops, or a school, or a council, or a rugby team, or a literary agency immediately means you'll have an eye for a good football manager is simply wrong, and has been shown to be wrong many times. Neither all forms of leadership, nor all forms of business are homogeneous in terms of what delivers success from one field of expertise to the next. I remember Gordon Brown saying that successful businessmen should be allowed to walk straight into the best teaching posts because, put simply, if you're good at one thing you'll be decent at another. While I've not particularly got anything against Gordon Brown, it was probably the dumbest thing I've heard in my life. It's also been tried out and, of course, failed miserably. Now I'm no politician, but look - just like we can observe decisions made by football clubs and make an educated guess as to whether they're good or bad ones, we can do the same in politics. Regardless of whether we've ever moved £ms before! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inckley fox Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 spot on mate - My biggest gripe apart from old age pensioners choosing to shop at peak times and moan when they have all week to go when it is quiet is people having blind faith or having an opinion that is purely emotion lead who aren't able to back up or provide reason behind their view. We are all prone to it though so I'm not going to sound too godly. I shoot from the hip sometimes too but I have seen people on here continue to provide their opinion over hours then days but not back it up. if anyone reads my posts on why Pearson was sacked, my views have changed over time as more information has come to light so that in itself shows that I made snap judgements as I was caught up in the emotion. I have however, been prepared to admit where I too have been wrong Okay, but I don't think you've gone out on a limb here. I think you've said that you're keeping an open mind and have explained why. I see no reason for you to apologise for that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleckneymike Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 in all seriousness mate, I'm only stating what I feel is true and took a while to sit and offer my view. I am open to criticism, you may sway my judgement, I'm not always right (friggin understatement) and if you disagree, present your case. I am usually laid back but in recent weeks a few things have cropped up that I feel passionate about so have put my case realising some will think I'm a tw@t and whilst I disagree with Inckley, I also respect the time he has taken to form his own opinion and even gave him a rep when he slated my post as he was at least prepared to table his views and subject himself to the same level of criticism as I have. Is it beer o'clock yet? I find it hard to disagree with an opinion which is couched in cliche and jargon precisely because it is couched in cliche and jargon. You've effectively said nothing more enlightening than "I trust them'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 The pro-board arguments are bizarre. Previously it was said that you could support Leicester without supporting Pearson. That you should get behind Leicester City, not necessarily a very successful manager who was just a custodian of the club. This was absolutely 100% correct. But to see many of the same people suggesting that Leicester City is, basically, King Power and you can't support the club if you don't get fully behind the owners seems massively convenient to me. Unless, of course, you take the view that our club is King Power. If that were true then I'd just conveniently stop supporting them, seeing as my allegiance was always to Leicester, not to a Bangkok-based duty free company closely associated with a king who has spent decades repressing democracy. On top of that, people are saying we shouldn't argue against the decision because we don't know 'all the facts', and therefore shouldn't draw logical links between the facts we do know. So assuming Pearson stood up for his son is as silly as assuming that Pearson's departure had anything to do with wanting to expand in the Far East, or Hiddink's sudden availability. But a lot of people seem to be willing to accept that Pearson must have done something which made his departure unavoidable, while simultaneously crying out that we can't criticise the board because we don't know exactly what has gone on. Worst of all, people seem to be saying that on the one hand the club will have learnt from their past errors. But on the other hand we should basically 'get over' the past, i.e. what we've achieved under Pearson, put all of that to one side and start focusing on the future. As far as I can see, you can't learn from the past and use it to make educated assertions about the future if, at the same time, you conveniently forget pretty much everything that's ever happened. The best argument in favour of the board is that they are willing to invest in the club, that they are ambitious and that they previously made a very good managerial appointment (albeit one which essentially backtracked on a couple of previous, near-catastrophic managerial appointments). None of these have ever guaranteed success, in fact as often as not these raw ingredients result in failure. Now I'm not going to be chanting for them to get the hell out, I'm not going to be singing Pearson's name the second things go wrong, but neither am I going to - in their words - 'trust that the fans understand that the board always acts in the best interests of the club'. It seems remarkable to me that, after a clearly very questionable decision which has been made once before in our recent history, and backfired then, other people are so keen to do so. The club will always get my support. But it doesn't change the fact that they have deviated from a road which led to almost certain year-on-year improvement, to another road which leads god-knows-where. And yet in the 'Pearson Out' thread you were adamant that his behaviour was totally unacceptable by most employers. What we don't know is what else has been going on for them to make this decision. I couldn't quote it directly for some reason maybe because the thread is closed. Anyhow here are a couple of your paragraphs. The problem is that it's not the sort of behaviour common to professionals of his standing, not in any walk of life, and not in football either. Especially not for clubs in our position. It's what it tells us about his overall professionalism which is worrying; his behaviour is that of a man who can't cope at this level, and unfortunately his results suggest much the same. It's funny to see managers swear at journalists, yes, but the reason why the Guardian are reporting the story already (and many more will follow) is that this isn't how top quality football managers behave. Maybe that behaviour should be deemed acceptable in football, but the reason why it's already making headlines tonight is that it's not the norm. You might get away with it if you're highly successful at the highest level, but Pearson isn't. Of course you're entitled to change your mind but I usually find your posts logical and am surprised by your amended opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagworthblue Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 I find it hard to disagree with an opinion which is couched in cliche and jargon precisely because it is couched in cliche and jargon. You've effectively said nothing more enlightening than "I trust them'. and provided reason for currently maintaining that trust and over both posts given insight into the process I've used to come to form my reasons. Take the point, it's a bit corporate but the content is still there. let's agree to disagree on whether I've said enough to agree or disagree with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagworthblue Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 Okay, but I don't think you've gone out on a limb here. I think you've said that you're keeping an open mind and have explained why. I see no reason for you to apologise for that! you met my missus? my ticket through life is to blindly apologise. Sometimes I do have to apologise for apologising Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos88LCFC Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 Without a doubt Gus could do it. Seems to me like he's first choice and Lennons there if he declines. I'm intrigued to see both have a go together. Gus has the brain and Lennon has the motivation, can't see this though. Wish we had stuck with Pearson though because it's becoming a joke now, we should be focusing on how we are going to play, what's the best first team for the current squad, what formation etc. Instead we are focused on who going to manage us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagworthblue Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 Without a doubt Gus could do it. Seems to me like he's first choice and Lennons there if he declines. I'm intrigued to see both have a go together. Gus has the brain and Lennon has the motivation, can't see this though. Wish we had stuck with Pearson though because it's becoming a joke now, we should be focusing on how we are going to play, what's the best first team for the current squad, what formation etc. Instead we are focused on who going to manage us... agree with all of this although to me Guus is Wembley and Lennon is 2nd round. There is a good chance Lennon can get us there but also a very big risk he can't. On the other hand Lennon is long term, and Guus short term. The problem is the Owners have gone big in strategy so you can't go strategically big with a small profile at the helm. The two appear inconsistent and for the same reason they parted company with Pearson, my view is that they won't feel Lennon fits the bill. The Guus / lennon combo is worth consideration but not sure that would work for lennon, to go from number 1 to number 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 Think Klopp would be the only way of pacifying the majority of fans. Pretty much anyone else we are linked with is a step down, anyone else we are linked with wouldn't warrent sacking Pearson. Klopp is about the only positive, forward thinking name on the list. These owners have money, these owners have ambition? Well hook em' out a show the ambition and dollar. Yep pretty much this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffolk exile Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 I wish I could really explain why I don't want Lennon - but genuinely I can't in sufficient detail. At the root of it, is a combination of a lack of experience, questions about his character, very few 'legends' of clubs can go on to become great coaches/managers and a sense that we could and should be looking at someone better - in terms of proven track record. Guus on other hand seems to fill me with more excitement and confidence - and equally I cannot properly explain this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagworthblue Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 I wish I could really explain why I don't want Lennon - but genuinely I can't in sufficient detail. At the root of it, is a combination of a lack of experience, questions about his character, very few 'legends' of clubs can go on to become great coaches/managers and a sense that we could and should be looking at someone better - in terms of proven track record. Guus on other hand seems to fill me with more excitement and confidence - and equally I cannot properly explain this. If it helps my view is the same but i'd add to the reasons. Lennon hasn't got overwhelming support of Bolton fans who have had to endure some pretty poor managers of late. He had an awful spell last season despite intially picking the club up a bit. He has succeeded in a league at a club that my dead childhood budgie could have managed to the success he did and quite frankly he adds risk to the risky decision taken by the owners. To have taken such a risk, they need to bring someone in that mitigates it as much as possible, someone proven, preferably in this league but if not at a high level elsewhere in leagues where there is genuine tough competition. The truth with Lennon is that he could be a massive success, a massive failure or somewhere in between. We just don't know and that is too big a risk to take. Add to this the ambition they are showing - To show ambition on every front you must show ambition wit the choice of manager - a big profile, proven name is needed otherwise may as well stick with Pearson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Earle Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 Agree with 'otherwise may as well stick with Pearson' . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 this could be the longest quote ever :-) I drafted a whole response and my laptop overheated and cut out so here we go again.... My get out of jail free card was the reference to broken trust. Yes people make the same mistakes more than once (i'm a prime example :-) ) But over time, the amount of fact builds, trends build to the point people can often have enough factual and circumstantial evidence to form a correct opinion. The more people study and look for the detail and consider over time, the more accurate a decision they are likely to come to. I am currently shutting out the conjecture of others (but listening to reasoned opinion) but internally fighting with myself as to whether the owners strategic growth plan is too aggressive or needs to be aggressive to succeed. It annoys me as I crave the info they have, I crave seeing the books as I live for such strategies - it is my career after all. So right now, I can only go on the facts I have within the below bullets, their record since joining the club, their success in their parent business proof of any learnings they have made in what is an alien industry to them. previous industry case studies and the environment at the time compared with the environment today I am currently of the conclusion that although their strategy appears high risk, there is sufficient mitigation in place and the backstop is their underlying wealth and the investments they have made to date reduces the risk of cut and run. They have shown in the past they have dug deep to cover the cost of their mistakes and took advise from football people in the recruitment of Nigel Pearson rather than another big spending big name. I was gutted that they sacked Pearson as I was supportive of the brick by brick building strategy in place. They now appear to feel the foundations are secure enough to go more aggressively to get to where they want to be and their strategy has therefore moved on from brick by brick to an extent. it is clear they are trying to globalise the brand of King Power and LCFC, and they feel to be taken seriously, they have to show the globe in a way people understand - high profile leaders and the spending of money. They may also feel that Team Pearson carried too much risk of relegation and wasn't as ambitious as they would like it to be. My experience tells me - if you are going to be aggressive, you have to follow it through, however hard things get, however the risk increases, if you pull out half way you lose.I don't think they will do that. Look to be fair the jury is out - it's either too aggressive too soon or it's necessary aggression and I'm torn. For now I don't have access to enough fact, there haven't been enough poor decisions made, for me to have my trust broken. It seems they are now taking advise of football men like Paulo Sousa, John Rudkin and others to make key decisions on footballing matters so that is at least a learning albeit are these people making good decisions? and are they right to put their trust in them? So I have to trust them to get this right until the trust is broken. I can see the merits of a positive aggressive strategy but equally I am well ware of the risk but feel sufficiently confident it is mitigated. My final point is an apology. I was bleary eyed and rushing ahead of taking my U9s training this am and re-reading it, it comes across as very patronising and it wasn't meant to be. There are plenty of people on here that are fully able to form their own opinions and base it on a number of relevant criteria. There are some however, that are emotion lead and I can be too so in effect, it was an attempt to get those people to think clearly as well as re-confirming in my own head that I was forming my position based on reasoned judgement rather than emotion. I am going to back the Thais now until the trust is broken because if we all get behind them, the chances of LCFC success is greater than if we are divided. **** me - that's enough for now cos I sound like a right tw@at. Had to read this post a couple of times but again overall very sensible BaggersYou know your shit (I believe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagworthblue Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 Had to read this post a couple of times but again overall very sensible Baggers You know your shit (I believe) or i'm full of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shade Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 Had to read this post a couple of times but again overall very sensible Baggers You know your shit (I believe) very interesting, and the one take away point which essentially renders all discussion on this topic somewhat moot, is nobody on here really knows what happened...yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazzerfox Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 Fear is bulit from risk. risk is probable or improbable, high or low consequence risk can be mitigated risk can be underwritten the historical examples people refer to are highlighting the risk in many peoples minds the risks historically were more probable then than they are today as there are now measures in place to prevent them There is substantial income today to help mitigate We have owners who are able and willing to underwrite The fact that the historical risk exist mean greater awareness exists and governance to prevent is in place today. In life to grow, you must take risks, but if you assess them, mitigate them where possible and are willing (in this case) to finance them in the event of failure, then you will ultimately succeed. With all due respect to most on the forum, including me, we live day to day in our own lives determining our path based on lots of detailed knowledge about our lives, but our view on the lives of others, on organisations and cultures is generally based on much less information, much of it which comes from what we read and hear and hence we work on perception, and we are susceptible to being swayed by the opinions and perceptions of others who also are not close to the detail. We view things from afar uneducated as to the detail those involved are aware of. But it is human nature. Anyway my point is, those, close to the details believe they have the funds and ability to grow this club, their plans to me seem viable, there is a PCG in in place, they are successful, know how to manage risk and we need to let them. We only need to trust and support and until the day comes when they do something that really breaks that trust and it is broken (broken , not up for challenge) where we have sufficient detail to believe it is broken then to grow, we must trust in those that have all the detail The first risk most of you guys took was to get on 2 legs and walk. If you never took that risk, well for most it's a long crawl every week to the KP I've read your post twice and I still don't know if you're talking the biggest load of shi* I've ever heard or whether you have actually made some good points. What I do know is that you could have condensed what you said into two paragraphs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/7134/euro-2016-qualifying/2015/06/15/12732142/hiddink-im-considering-quitting-netherlands-job?ICID=PP_4252 "I have an idea about another role as senior coach" Interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 I've read your post twice and I still don't know if you're talking the biggest load of shi* I've ever heard or whether you have actually made some good points. What I do know is that you could have condensed what you said into two paragraphs! Feel free to go ahead and try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fridgechef Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 I reckon it is a done deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluearmyfox28 Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/7134/euro-2016-qualifying/2015/06/15/12732142/hiddink-im-considering-quitting-netherlands-job?ICID=PP_4252 "I have an idea about another role as senior coach" Interesting That is very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagworthblue Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 I've read your post twice and I still don't know if you're talking the biggest load of shi* I've ever heard or whether you have actually made some good points. What I do know is that you could have condensed what you said into two paragraphs! totally agree - I am prone to waffle. how about this Don't believe what you see and read - form opinion based on facts you acquire over time / not based on emotion don't put forward opinions based on emotion/ hearsay as fact trust until sufficient evidence exists to break the trust To succeed, assess risk / take risks if the consequence isn't too great or if it is unlikely. to succeed, don't start something unless you intend / have the resources to do whatever it takes to see it through summat like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagworthblue Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 That is very interesting. the plot thickens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 4 July 2015 Share Posted 4 July 2015 or i'm full of it Just hope for the sake of our football club this all gets resolved soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.