Mark_from_USA Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 That second paragraph just screams 'I am the enlightened one, heed my words, uneducated masses!' Your argument seems to be as follows The fans wanted the Trip-to-Thailand-trio (including James Pearson) sacked Nigel did not want James Pearson to be sacked Therefore, the fans were effectively calling for Nigel to be sacked This is not correct. It is not contradictory to want James out of the club while being content to see anyone who disagrees with you remain at the club. All we were doing was disagreeing with him, nothing more. If this is indeed what happened the owners are at fault because they sacked the manager for something that wasn't a sackable offence. The fans did not want Nigel sacked. The fans could not have known that Nigel would fight the club over James sacking. However, by demanding James sacking, they put the club in the position that they had no choice but to sack James, and this seems have led to a non recoverable conflict with Nigel. If the latest Mirror story is true, can someone suggest a course of action the owners could have taken when faced with a manager who was fighting them about this? If you cannot, then you also cannot blame the owners. That's my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_from_USA Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 That is total shit. your logic overwhelms me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozleicester Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 The Mirror seems to have been "ITK" about city for some time now so i tend to see them as most likely to have some accuracy about what happened. To be fair, it doesnt really matter, NP has gone and at the moment i fear for who we will have to replace him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrytaggart Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 For the Thais to have sacked Nige at this point they would have to have a solid reason, we may never get to hear it but it must be a reason enough for them. You dont sack your manager who has delivered in terms of targets on a whim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 I've heard that it wasn't that he blew his top after James was sacked, it was that he went AWOL and was uncontactable (not for the first time either). I don't know if its reliable story or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEMANN Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 That caption is pretty dodgy as well - sacked: James pearson and Tom hopper. Hopper isn't in the picture, that's Mahrez, it shouldn't make reference of hopper, it should be something along the lines of Sacked: James Pearson, seen here celebrating promotion with Riyad Mahrez, Not sure whether you are trolling or not?..But just to be on the safe side...Hopper is on the left...James Pearson on the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank to be Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 If Pearson is as "principled" as he likes to appear and didn't agree with his son being sacked I'm convinced he would have resigned or left by mutual agreement with his payout. There must be something else to this other than Pearson disagreeing with the decision to sack his son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuna Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 Bollocks. Made up rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamogoon Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 Obviously this is a poor article. However I do believe that this is a viable theory. If Pearson didn't like the fact that Smith and his son got sacked it doesn't mean he would have resigned. He might just have disagreed with the decision and thought no more of it. The owners may then have decided that they couldn't accept his outlook on the situation and that they didn't want to work with him anymore. You've got to admit that he's definitely arrogant enough to sound off without thinking of the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad the Fox Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 His absence for a few weeks could have been down to him being told 'this is our stance, go away and think about it, cool down'. A few weeks passed, he hadn't changed his opinion and so they felt they had to let him go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 Obviously this is a poor article. However I do believe that this is a viable theory. If Pearson didn't like the fact that Smith and his son got sacked it doesn't mean he would have resigned. He might just have disagreed with the decision and thought no more of it. The owners may then have decided that they couldn't accept his outlook on the situation and that they didn't want to work with him anymore. You've got to admit that he's definitely arrogant enough to sound off without thinking of the consequences. Have we? Are we still throwing around the arrogant claim without ever having even remotely attempted to back it up? Just repeating it doesn't make it true y'know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARM1968 Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 If Pearson was at all principled he would have sided with the owners in the way they dealt with the 3 morons - son or not. What they did was indefensible frankly in the context of the club, the owners and where it happened. They were idiots. Pearson kicking off about it, trying to reverse it, or simply having an uncontactable strop about it is more idiotic in my opinion. He was a ticking timebomb. So better now than 6 weeks into the season, or mid way through. I applaud the man for those last few weeks and the frankly unbelievable turn around we enjoyed, but he is a complete nob for not being more professional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornyhollthefox123 Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 Was speaking to someone who knows a couple of people down at the club today and he told me something very similar... Nigel believed that the owners had a part to play in the 'racist orgy' due to the fact that they own the hotel in Thailand that the players stayed at and therefore the prostitutes that were provided for the players were provided by the hotel, and indirectly the owners. With James cleared of racism by the internal investigation Nigel therefore asked what they had sacked him for as he was not involved in any racism towards the women and should therefore have been given a less severe punishment. The relationship between the owners then took another hit when Pearson said that he didn't want Austin and would prefer the money to be spent elsewhere if it was available which, coupled with his reaction of James being sacked, was the final straw and he was sacked. Said it before and I'll say it again. The first paragraph RE the prostitutes is bang on. Not sure about the Austin part though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 Was speaking to someone who knows a couple of people down at the club today and he told me something very similar... Nigel believed that the owners had a part to play in the 'racist orgy' due to the fact that they own the hotel in Thailand that the players stayed at and therefore the prostitutes that were provided for the players were provided by the hotel, and indirectly the owners. With James cleared of racism by the internal investigation Nigel therefore asked what they had sacked him for as he was not involved in any racism towards the women and should therefore have been given a less severe punishment. The relationship between the owners then took another hit when Pearson said that he didn't want Austin and would prefer the money to be spent elsewhere if it was available which, coupled with his reaction of James being sacked, was the final straw and he was sacked. This is bang on from what I've heard now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 If I was Nigel Pearson I'd be pissed yeah of course the slit eye comment was well out of order and deserved a dismissal but what else went on wasn't just the fault of the players they are young immature lads you give them a load of money, put them up in a hotel and put it on a plate for them 1000s of miles away from home what else did the owners think would happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 pearson jnr's contract was up end june. would seem from the discussions above that pearson snr had every intention of offering him a new one. surely, thats a sackable offence for the manager on its own ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eblair Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 not doubting people are hearing things from inside the club about the sacking being in part due to nigel's response to the thailand fiasco, but do people not think that the higher ups within the club want the rank and file members of the club to believe this therefore giving the impression to city fans this is the reasonjust pointing out people within the club could easily be fed wrong information deliberately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_77 Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 If you insist on blaming the owners you are just plain stubborn and wrong. Read my blog on it here: http://www.premierpunditry.com/2015/07/goodbye-nigel-pearson/ Boy, I hope nobody reading those columns thinks you speak for us USA Foxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxfanazer Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 If you insist on blaming the owners you are just plain stubborn and wrong. Read my blog on it here: http://www.premierpunditry.com/2015/07/goodbye-nigel-pearson/ Do you write many of these? Such ill informed drivel! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowlattsFox Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 I find it interesting that none of the reliable ITKs have commented on the sacking since it happened. Maybe they don't know about anything other than the odd transfer but you'd think there would be some inside information. Maybe it's too risky for them to comment which is fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 do people not think that the higher ups within the club want the rank and file members of the club to believe this therefore giving the impression to city fans this is the reason just pointing out people within the club could easily be fed wrong information deliberately Might be a good shout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_from_USA Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 Actually you got the point of my article then. We are all 'I'll informed' yet we insist on passing judgement both on the original situation and now on the owners for their reaction. Thanks for reading. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxfanazer Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 Actually you got the point of my article then. We are all 'I'll informed' yet we insist on passing judgement both on the original situation and now on the owners for their reaction. Thanks for reading. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk but you make out your word is gospel and everything else is speculation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_from_USA Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 Boy, I hope nobody reading those columns thinks you speak for us USA Foxes.We are always up for more contributions. If you see it differently comment on the post, or send a clip in to the show. They always invite people to do so.Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_from_USA Posted 5 July 2015 Share Posted 5 July 2015 but you make out your word is gospel and everything else is speculationActually I make out that applying logic I think it's the most likely scenario. And it's an opinion piece, not a news report. I am supposed to strongly state my views.Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.