Mark_w Posted 9 July 2015 Share Posted 9 July 2015 They've done nothing wrong since the appointment of sven. If you want to overlook them apparently trying to tap up Harry Redknapp in 2012 (I'm sure Nigel Pearson's agent told Talk Sport that he had it on good authority that the club had talked to Redknapp - anyone else remember?). Sacking him during the season (I'm sure I've made it clear I thought that was a bad decision, think I may have been vindicated on that one), but even if you agreed with that decision, the shambolic handling of it sacking him and then reinstating him. Oh and since appointing Sven they let Sven spend ridiculous amounts of money with seemingly no sane strategy and told the media they were going to spend however much money and Nigel had to play it down to salvage the situation. They could have sacked him properly during that time yes, but to say they've been faultless since appointing Sven is an absolute lie. They deserve credit for funding good initiatives for the fans and they deserve a small amount of credit for back tracking on decisions to sack Nigel. But they've certainly made errors and dismissing him now is the biggest and most unforgivable of the lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Posted 9 July 2015 Share Posted 9 July 2015 If you want to overlook them apparently trying to tap up Harry Redknapp in 2012 (I'm sure Nigel Pearson's agent told Talk Sport that he had it on good authority that the club had talked to Redknapp - anyone else remember?). Sacking him during the season (I'm sure I've made it clear I thought that was a bad decision, think I may have been vindicated on that one), but even if you agreed with that decision, the shambolic handling of it sacking him and then reinstating him. Oh and since appointing Sven they let Sven spend ridiculous amounts of money with seemingly no sane strategy and told the media they were going to spend however much money and Nigel had to play it down to salvage the situation. They could have sacked him properly during that time yes, but to say they've been faultless since appointing Sven is an absolute lie. They deserve credit for funding good initiatives for the fans and they deserve a small amount of credit for back tracking on decisions to sack Nigel. But they've certainly made errors and dismissing him now is the biggest and most unforgivable of the lot.A As Inckley Fox has mentioned, only time will tell with this seemingly surreal sacking of Pearson at the time least expected of all whilst at the peak of his managerial career to date...and arguably now of all time for him. This excluding his dramatic time at Carlisle in 1999 aside of course (Jimmy Glass et al) which was pretty monumental on a lesser stage too at the time of course (for Carlisle). There is obviously more to Pearson's sacking than meets the eye, especially right now. Had it happened during the football season then more would have been revealed about the situation more instantaneously but due to it's timing then the Thais are probably under no obligation to say why as yet. We'll just have to wait and see now re the reasoning. Gus Hiddink would be a shrewd appointment for me above any of the other names being banded about at present but they should make a managerial sooner rather than later with the new season only a mere 29 days away now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrytaggart Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 Gus Hiddink can kiss my arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank to be Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 But it wasn't a good appointment. And you can't excuse them appointing Sven on the grounds that many fans thought it made sense at the time. Since when did the fans' reaction to an appointment, or a sacking for that matter, have any impact on how successful a decision it was considered to be? It is always history which dictates the correctness of a decision, just as it did with the largely popular appointments of Pleat, Taylor, Levein, Allen and Holloway, and the somewhat less-celebrated arrivals of Milne, Lee, Little and (first time around) Pearson himself. This decision, similarly, will be judged on how it sits within the club's history. In terms of how Pearson will be judged - well, that's pretty straightforward, isn't it? He's taken us up two divisions, kept us in the PL and been fired while at the peak of his success. The board, for their part, have invested plenty of money in us - whether we're a marketing device for King Power or not - and made some good decisions (the ones where they've either appointed or not sacked Pearson) and some poorer ones (the ones where they've edged Pearson out, or appointed anyone else). We know the story up to this point - and none of this is assumption, or guesswork, or deduction, it's all just history - but we don't know what comes next; the impact that this decision will have. The sacking might work out fine for us, Pearson's career could divebomb, we could find out that he'd committed an act of gross misconduct, as you keep implying, and we could go on to bigger and better things for which Pearson and the next manager will get their respective shares of the credit, and the board will get a great deal more. We might come to see it as an inspired, proactive bit of judgement on their part. But we don't know any of this yet. We only know the story up to the point where they fired the successful manager and gave no reason for it. So yes, another manager - Hiddink, Lennon, AVB, Di Matteo, Phillips, O'Neill - could have a plan too. It might work as well as NP's, or as badly as Sousa's and Sven's. It might work even better. Evidence could come out which backs up some of the claims people are making. We could continue our meteoric rise. But this is where you keep struggling - on the difference between things that have happened and those which either haven't happened or, in some or other scenario devised, might have. That's a perfectly reasonable summary of the situation. The difference appears to be in our reaction to the key unknown, ie the real reason for Pearson's sacking. In respect of how we view the owners, there are positive theories and negative theories. They're all just theories and at this point we've no option but to have faith in one or the other. The difference between us is not down to a lack of understanding on either side, but simply because I've weighed up the evidence and chosen to support a positive theory, while you've weighed up the evidence and chosen to support a negative theory. Neither of us know which of us is right on wrong and as long as we acknowledge that point then there's no reason for any argument. The reason for the argument is that some posters are refusing to entertain the possibility that a positive theory may be correct and have effectively written off the owners based on no evidence. I don't think that's fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank to be Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 If you want to overlook them apparently trying to tap up Harry Redknapp in 2012 (I'm sure Nigel Pearson's agent told Talk Sport that he had it on good authority that the club had talked to Redknapp - anyone else remember?). Sacking him during the season (I'm sure I've made it clear I thought that was a bad decision, think I may have been vindicated on that one), but even if you agreed with that decision, the shambolic handling of it sacking him and then reinstating him. Oh and since appointing Sven they let Sven spend ridiculous amounts of money with seemingly no sane strategy and told the media they were going to spend however much money and Nigel had to play it down to salvage the situation. They could have sacked him properly during that time yes, but to say they've been faultless since appointing Sven is an absolute lie. They deserve credit for funding good initiatives for the fans and they deserve a small amount of credit for back tracking on decisions to sack Nigel. But they've certainly made errors and dismissing him now is the biggest and most unforgivable of the lot. Tapping up Harry Redknapp: unsubstantiated rumour. Even if true, keeping tabs with potential future managers isn't necessarily a bad thing. Indeed plenty of fans have criticised the owners for apparently not doing exactly that since Pearson's sacking. Pearson's sack/unsack: that did have an amateur hour air about it but with two owners on different sides of the world I can see why that might have happened. The club never actually officially sacked him. The mistake there was leaking the news that he'd been sacked before it was fully agreed. In the end the owners got that decision right. Backing sven: ordinarily owners giving a manager funds and letting them get on with the job is seen as a good thing. Sven was supposed to know what he was doing. He didn't have a clue, and the owners realised, sacked him, and then write off the debt created. The owners are blamed for Sven overspending but Pearson is credited for reigning it in. Are the owners responsible for financial management or is it the manager? You can't have it both ways. Personally, I think the best owners leave as much as possible to the manager, and I think that's what ours did. Hence, Sven was to blame for the overspending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FOXES-BROWNBOY Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 I reckon if we got Hiddink then cambiasso would stay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreverfox Posted 10 July 2015 Share Posted 10 July 2015 This is not over yet MON now odds against on the he exchanges and Hiddink has NOT ruled himself out as of yet. Money coming back in for him..Another twist! Where will this end! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.