Alf Bentley Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 You are wrong to suggest it was much easier to get into the top half then. The Premier League money had started and it was very similar to now if you look below the top 4. Teams like Stoke, Southampton and Swansea can make the top half now so it certainly is not a lot harder now. Fair point. I suppose it's mainly the top 6 that has become more impenetrable than the top half. It's probably as hard/easy for a middling club to finish 9th as it was in the O'Neill era - though it's a fair while since a newly promoted club finished in the top half like O'Neill did, isn't it? Teams like Swansea, Stoke & Southampton have taken at least a couple of seasons to enter the top 10, haven't they? (Haven't checked that last point, just commenting from memory, so feel free to correct me....)
inckley fox Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 Well you keep on with your love for Pearson. It won't get you anywhere. He's gone and won't be coming back. Like in a broken relationship. Eventually you just have to move on! And don't start spouting on about you being a bigger fan blah blah blah because people disagree with you. You know nothing about me and how many games I've to. Yes but you rarely cheer up and move on on the same day that you break up, as some people here seem to think you should. It's human to expect a brief period of sorry contemplation. And if someone kicked off at me for looking a bit down in the dumps, told me confidently that I was best shot of her and questioned whether I had just cause to feel regretful then, unless it was a ruse to break me out of my slumber, I'd be a bit annoyed. As for who is a fan and who isn't, it's perfectly possible to be a Leicester fan but not especially rate Nigel Pearson, or Ranieri, or Sven or whoever. I see no problem with that, so long as the same people aren't critical of those who might not like the new manager, or a certain player, or even the board. It would be unnatural, however, for any fan of Leicester City not to deeply respect what Pearson did for the club, or acknowledge it as constituting success. It might well be a sign of someone who isn't a particularly true fan or, alternatively, isn't a particularly rational fan. Not that I'm saying this is the case with you, certainly not. But there are a certain number of heroes, on-field and off-field, in the club's history whom you'd expect a City fan to acknowledge as such. I'd be disappointed to see a post thoroughly slating O'Neill, Gillies, Weller, Lineker and a whole load of others. That, much like an unbalanced post, or string of posts full of bile and disregard for Pearson, would surely indicate someone who wasn't a particularly good fan. And I say this, by the way, as someone who thought - respectfully - that he might have reached the end of his tenure back in March.
inckley fox Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 That's garbage. The campaign is against the owners/Ranieri. The knives were put before he has even been confirmed. It's not garbage in your case! Your campaign has been thoroughly against Pearson and in favour of the owners, even though they're the ones who are going to have to justify their decision (be it by explaining it, or demonstrating through results that it was the right decision). For my part, I am perfectly supportive of Ranieri and willing to give the owners a chance to show that they were right. It doesn't look that way at the moment, but it may well do in the not-so-distant future. And, of course, I hope it is.
BlueSi13 Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 If, as the official line informs us, Pearson was sacked for 'non footballing' related matters, he really has only himself to blame. For this alone, gives me reason to still be angry at him. His achievements were very good, that is without question. Whether he could have gone on to achieve more, we'll never know now. It's this which is the most frustrating part of this whole mess. Has anybody thought for a single moment that between the owners and Pearson, it might not have been Pearson who was the difficult one to work with?
Bettsj2 Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 It's not garbage in your case! Your campaign has been thoroughly against Pearson and in favour of the owners, even though they're the ones who are going to have to justify their decision (be it by explaining it, or demonstrating through results that it was the right decision). For my part, I am perfectly supportive of Ranieri and willing to give the owners a chance to show that they were right. It doesn't look that way at the moment, but it may well do in the not-so-distant future. And, of course, I hope it is. How can you say that it doesnt look justified at the moment? What has actually happened that you absolutely know about that draws you to that conclusion? Not having a go, just many seem to hold that kind of opinion and i'm just wondering what its based on seeing as we actually know nothing about what actually went on.
Webbo Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 Polite request; Can we keep the discussions about Pearson's sacking in the Pearson sacked thread please. I know I'm as guilty as anyone but we're discussing the same thing in about 4 different threads and it's not fair on the OPs. Well this was a waste of time.
inckley fox Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 Polite request; Can we keep the discussions about Pearson's sacking in the Pearson sacked thread please. I know I'm as guilty as anyone but we're discussing the same thing in about 4 different threads and it's not fair on the OPs. Well this was a waste of time. What if the message for Pearson concerns his sacking?
BlueSi13 Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 How can you say that it doesnt look justified at the moment? What has actually happened that you absolutely know about that draws you to that conclusion? Not having a go, just many seem to hold that kind of opinion and i'm just wondering what its based on seeing as we actually know nothing about what actually went on. Because anybody with an ounce of sense would look at what the man has achieved at this football club and realised that removing the man from his job makes no sense whatsoever. Therefore, some of us would like to hear some of the finer details as to what exactly happened. 'Differences in perspective' just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. I have severe differences in perspective about many things with those a lot higher than me and a lot lower than me in my professional capacity, but I wouldn't for one moment accept that job losses are an acceptable response to this.
ImBlue Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 When Pearson was sacked based on non-footballing matters, why do people persist with footballing arguments? I think Pearson did his job well in terms of results, recruitment etc. However he embarrassed himself and ultimately the club with his off field antics and it would seem it was behind the owners reasoning for firing him. There isn't any basis at the moment to say it's a bad decision as Ranieri hasn't done anything wrong and while everyone says recruitment was bad, it took 2 weeks, and the fact everyone still has no idea who was top target shows it was also done with discretion. If it doesn't work out and Ranieri doesn't deliver, I will be the first to admit they will have questions to answer.
inckley fox Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 How can you say that it doesnt look justified at the moment? What has actually happened that you absolutely know about that draws you to that conclusion? Not having a go, just many seem to hold that kind of opinion and i'm just wondering what its based on seeing as we actually know nothing about what actually went on. I look at a sacking the same way a court of law would - that it has to be justified by the person who does the sacking. If I can't see the justification - and usually you don't have to look very far - then you have to assume that it wasn't justified. So there are two possible reasons for any sacking: Either the employee wasn't very good at their job, or they were highly unprofessional. Well, Pearson was very good at his job and, as yet, there's no proof - nor even a suggestion by the club - that he did anything highly unprofessional. And there's another possibility which could render the whole decision irrelevant. If we've replaced him with a better manager, and we might have, then nobody will care whether the board's decision was morally upstanding or not, because they will see that the board acted in our best interests. This is what they said they were doing. I hope they did. But on the face of it, the sacking of a successful leader at the height of his success, in a game where successful leaders are a nightmare to find, doesn't bear the hallmarks of a good decision. To keep Webbo happy, I'd like to add that this isn't only my message to you, but also to Pearson.
MC Prussian Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 When Pearson was sacked based on non-footballing matters, why do people persist with footballing arguments? I think Pearson did his job well in terms of results, recruitment etc. However he embarrassed himself and ultimately the club with his off field antics and it would seem it was behind the owners reasoning for firing him. There isn't any basis at the moment to say it's a bad decision as Ranieri hasn't done anything wrong and while everyone says recruitment was bad, it took 2 weeks, and the fact everyone still has no idea who was top target shows it was also done with discretion. If it doesn't work out and Ranieri doesn't deliver, I will be the first to admit they will have questions to answer. How do you know that? The official statement doesn't give the true reason away at all: ..., it has become clear to the Club that fundamental differences in perspective exist between us. Regrettably, the Club believes that the working relationship between Nigel and the Board is no longer viable.
inckley fox Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 How do you know that? The official statement doesn't give the true reason away at all: Even if it's true, not a single 'non-footballing reason' has been disclosed as of yet, which makes it impossible to agree with the decision on those grounds. In fact, it's only possible to actively agree with the decision if you have some other reason (than whatever it was he was fired for) for wanting Pearson to be replaced by Ranieri; either that or your faith in the board is so deeply held that you don't believe they could possibly be in the wrong. On the other hand, there are at least plenty of footballing reasons to be annoyed with the decision.
ImBlue Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 Even if it's true, not a single 'non-footballing reason' has been disclosed as of yet, which makes it impossible to agree with the decision on those grounds. In fact, it's only possible to actively agree with the decision if you have some other reason (than whatever it was he was fired for) for wanting Pearson to be replaced by Ranieri; either that or your faith in the board is so deeply held that you don't believe they could possibly be in the wrong. On the other hand, there are at least plenty of footballing reasons to be annoyed with the decision. The fact I think he is a better top level manager, better tactician, can attract top players, doesn't act like a prat etc does also help yes.
Bettsj2 Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 Because anybody with an ounce of sense would look at what the man has achieved at this football club and realised that removing the man from his job makes no sense whatsoever. Therefore, some of us would like to hear some of the finer details as to what exactly happened. 'Differences in perspective' just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. I have severe differences in perspective about many things with those a lot higher than me and a lot lower than me in my professional capacity, but I wouldn't for one moment accept that job losses are an acceptable response to this. So until you know what those differences are, you surely cant say difinitively that it was the wrong decision? And regards the difference in perspective and trying to relate it to every day jobs, there are several examples that can be listed of a difference in perspective that would most definitely lead to a sacking.
MC Prussian Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 The fact I think he is a better top level manager, better tactician, can attract top players, doesn't act like a prat etc does also help yes. His past has some weight in that, but I think he needs to deliver and deliver quick if he wants to live up to the owners' and fans' expectations. I think with Pearson, we were on the way of building something longer-lasting, even managing to attract more than decent (foreign) talent that helped shape the squad as a unit. I do hope you don't equal "top players" with "overpriced players", because I'd be deeply disappointed if our previous philosophy which put a lot of emphasis on teamwork and unity and the inclusion of lesser-known, lower-division players would be replaced by solely filling up the roster with expensive has-beens or big names that are past it in truth. As for the "prat" part, Pearson remains like Marmite. You either like him or not. I found his honesty and style unique and also refreshing. Quite the entertainment compared to all the other regular dullards (some of them even less successful on the sportive side of things than Nigel).
inckley fox Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 The fact I think he is a better top level manager, better tactician, can attract top players, doesn't act like a prat etc does also help yes. So you're not trying to defend Pearson's sacking any more, you're just of the view that Ranieri is better? To be honest, it's a perfectly reasonable stance to take, if that's your view. It makes more sense than supporting his sacking for some or other reason which none of us know. But are we still seriously claiming that Pearson can't attract top players? I'd have thought Cambiasso would have put that one to bed once and for all, seeing as he's the most high profile player ever to sign for our club.
foxinsocks Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 Look... if the owners and np fell out about football then if say the owners wanted to try the Christmas tree and np didn't then all the np supporters wpuld say this was mad... but it is still their club even if this was not good practice. If,as i suspect, it was non footballing...ie they didnt like his views..attitude..conduct or found him impossible to work with that's entirely right for them to let him go... even if they were wrong...as perception is in the eye of the perceiver. Message to np is that he needs to think about how he contributed to being surplus to the owner's requirements... his next potential employers will want to see he takes responsibility and has learned
Bettsj2 Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 I look at a sacking the same way a court of law would - that it has to be justified by the person who does the sacking. If I can't see the justification - and usually you don't have to look very far - then you have to assume that it wasn't justified. So there are two possible reasons for any sacking: Either the employee wasn't very good at their job, or they were highly unprofessional. Well, Pearson was very good at his job and, as yet, there's no proof - nor even a suggestion by the club - that he did anything highly unprofessional. And there's another possibility which could render the whole decision irrelevant. If we've replaced him with a better manager, and we might have, then nobody will care whether the board's decision was morally upstanding or not, because they will see that the board acted in our best interests. This is what they said they were doing. I hope they did. But on the face of it, the sacking of a successful leader at the height of his success, in a game where successful leaders are a nightmare to find, doesn't bear the hallmarks of a good decision. To keep Webbo happy, I'd like to add that this isn't only my message to you, but also to Pearson. I'm not sure you can say that there are no instances at all of Pearson being unprofessional. The grounds for firing someone can stretch beyond the two categories that you state. An owner of any business has the right to remove someone from employment if they are at polar opposites of where they see the goals of said company.
inckley fox Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 I'm not sure you can say that there are no instances at all of Pearson being unprofessional. The grounds for firing someone can stretch beyond the two categories that you state. An owner of any business has the right to remove someone from employment if they are at polar opposites of where they see the goals of said company. But that would be a sacking in their interests, rather than ours. Whether or not they enjoy their Monday meetings with Pearson shouldn't matter to us so long as results are good, which they have been. And if their 'goals' were different that would also suggest footballing differences, which we're led to believe don't exist. And I never said Pearson hadn't ever behaved unprofessionally, but he wasn't fired for those reasons. If the board did sit back and reflect that, yes, he did upset a lot of people and acted a little out of order at various points during the season, so it probably made sense to sack him, then that would be a spectacularly unnecessary decision. If this isn't what happened then, like you say, something else did. Sadly we have no evidence of what that was nor who was to blame. There are reasons out there for believing it could be either, and there are reasons out there for believing that it was an excuse for 'moving the club into its next phase', as they put it the other day. Until we have a reason, however, we have to remember that it is the board who made the decision. And if I am to agree with it I'll need a good reason to agree with it first.
Bettsj2 Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 But that would be a sacking in their interests, rather than ours. Whether or not they enjoy their Monday meetings with Pearson shouldn't matter to us so long as results are good, which they have been. And if their 'goals' were different that would also suggest footballing differences, which we're led to believe don't exist. And I never said Pearson hadn't ever behaved unprofessionally, but he wasn't fired for those reasons. If the board did sit back and reflect that, yes, he did upset a lot of people and acted a little out of order at various points during the season, so it probably made sense to sack him, then that would be a spectacularly unnecessary decision. If this isn't what happened then, like you say, something else did. Sadly we have no evidence of what that was nor who was to blame. There are reasons out there for believing it could be either, and there are reasons out there for believing that it was an excuse for 'moving the club into its next phase', as they put it the other day. Until we have a reason, however, we have to remember that it is the board who made the decision. And if I am to agree with it I'll need a good reason to agree with it first. Thats all fine and good, however if any of us still believe in our heart of hearts that any decision made by the owners of any football club have anything to do with anything other than their own agenda, i'm afraid those are being a little naive. Your first sentance is completely correct. The sacking was in their interests. The club do fall into that category of 'their interests' but I doubt those interests will ever align with the fans as they unlike us, do not have an emotional investment in the club. Our first interest is the football and theirs will be the financials. Sadly the financials now dictate the football. Whilst it hasnt been said officially, I dont believe for a second that Pearsons antics this season have nothing to do with the sacking. Whatever the final straw was, I believe was convenient enough for the owners to pull the trigger. Whilst i'm happy with the Ranieri appointment as I believe he will be uber pro, his football rigid and will guide us to the top 10 which the owners want, I cant help feeling a little sad that it wont be Nigel leading us next year (and I say this as a historic critic of the man!). Football has become dictated by money and a bland formula that Pearson didnt conform too at all. Whilst he was here I did crave for someone better and less of a dick. Now he's actually gone, I think i'm actually going to miss him being involved with the club. The 6 years in total he spent with us were certainly never dull and whilst i'll never hold him in the same regard as MON, i'll certainly always be grateful for what he did for us whether it turns out he deserved the sack or not.
Carl the Llama Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 That's garbage. The campaign is against the owners/Ranieri. The knives were put before he has even been confirmed. I want to throw up in your face and wipe my faeces all over your chest that's so hypocritical.
ImBlue Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 I want to throw up in your face and wipe my faeces all over your chest that's so hypocritical. I take it you don't agree then..
richard80014 Posted 15 July 2015 Posted 15 July 2015 Not really sure what all the fuss is about. He very nearly destroyed our great club last season with his arrogance and diabolical selections. We only survived with 2 games to go with a team that should have done better. MON is our best ever manager and those kiddies on here who didn't witness those great times need to speak to more seasoned supporters who will tell you about a true great manager - not some arrogant plonker with his head so far up his backside - which eventually and rightly so got him fired. Good riddance to bad news. Anyone who wants to have a go I have one things to say to you Hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa Pearson is gone so back to your comics and playstation kiddies hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Been the best summer ever celebrating the owner's courage to sack a useless arrogant clown. Farewell, but not goodbye. Has your wife left you?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.