Susan Whelan calls on fans to trust club's decision to replace Pearson

[Frank to be]

Yes, you could well be right. On both counts.

But he said what he said - "He knows me very well. He knows me from a long time ago. He follows me and he knows very well what I can do for the club." It does sort of suggest the board had some sort of prior communication with the guy, even if you imagine how the same sentence would work in Italian I don't - from my sketchy knowledge of Italian - think the meaning would be changed. I accept Ranieri could be exaggerating their closeness a little, or his poor English could be to blame, but it's another question I'd like to hear the board - or Ranieri - asked: If you knew these guys so well, why did you have to announce your lack of contact with them to the press?

There may well be a perfectly reasonable answer, and even if there isn't it will hardly matter if he does a good job for us, but I think the question is worth asking.

The trouble is even if you asked ranieri if he knew Vichai prior to being appointed and he said no, you still wouldn't believe him because this latest conspiracy theory of yours involves the club and ranieri deliberately misleading onlookers. If you think the club and ranieri are involved in such a devious scheme why would you believe any answer they gave to that question?

[inckley fox]

The trouble is even if you asked ranieri if he knew Vichai prior to being appointed and he said no, you still wouldn't believe him because this latest conspiracy theory of yours involves the club and ranieri deliberately misleading onlookers. If you think the club and ranieri are involved in such a devious scheme why would you believe any answer they gave to that question?

 

Not at all, you're putting words into my mouth. It's not a conspiracy theory it's what Ranieri actually said - he knew the board 'from a long time ago', they 'follow' him, he knows them 'very well' - it indicates more prior communication than just a pre-season friendly.

 

If that were the case, then bearing in mind he went to the press to say the club hadn't been in touch, it would be very odd that he hadn't been in touch with people he already knew well, about a job he was interested in. And it would be even odder that they hadn't already considered someone they knew well to be a potential candidate for the post, especially as he turned out to be 'the outstanding candidate.'

 

It's not a wild theory, it's just pointing out two things Ranieri has said which seem hard to reconcile and which could ask questions of the notion that the board had nobody else lined up before Pearson was fired.

 

To be honest I'm not even saying there would be any great problem in having another manager lined up, even if you were happy with the current one.

 

I'm purely pointing out that there's a question mark over what Ranieri said today. Okay, if his 'come and get me' was disingenuous then maybe we shouldn't believe anything else he says about it, but seeing as I'm not going to go out and start a riot about it, or chant abuse from the stands, I don't see the harm in asking the question.

[Izzy]

Not at all, you're putting words into my mouth. It's not a conspiracy theory it's what Ranieri actually said - he knew the board 'from a long time ago', they 'follow' him, he knows them 'very well' - it indicates more prior communication than just a pre-season friendly.

 

If that were the case, then bearing in mind he went to the press to say the club hadn't been in touch, it would be very odd that he hadn't been in touch with people he already knew well, about a job he was interested in. And it would be even odder that they hadn't already considered someone they knew well to be a potential candidate for the post, especially as he turned out to be 'the outstanding candidate.'

 

It's not a wild theory, it's just pointing out two things Ranieri has said which seem hard to reconcile and which could ask questions of the notion that the board had nobody else lined up before Pearson was fired.

 

To be honest I'm not even saying there would be any great problem in having another manager lined up, even if you were happy with the current one.

 

I'm purely pointing out that there's a question mark over what Ranieri said today. Okay, if his 'come and get me' was disingenuous then maybe we shouldn't believe anything else he says about it, but seeing as I'm not going to go out and start a riot about it, or chant abuse from the stands, I don't see the harm in asking the question.

You are very thorough in your posts - I'll give you that!

[Frank to be]

Not at all, you're putting words into my mouth. It's not a conspiracy theory it's what Ranieri actually said - he knew the board 'from a long time ago', they 'follow' him, he knows them 'very well' - it indicates more prior communication than just a pre-season friendly.

If that were the case, then bearing in mind he went to the press to say the club hadn't been in touch, it would be very odd that he hadn't been in touch with people he already knew well, about a job he was interested in. And it would be even odder that they hadn't already considered someone they knew well to be a potential candidate for the post, especially as he turned out to be 'the outstanding candidate.'

It's not a wild theory, it's just pointing out two things Ranieri has said which seem hard to reconcile and which could ask questions of the notion that the board had nobody else lined up before Pearson was fired.

To be honest I'm not even saying there would be any great problem in having another manager lined up, even if you were happy with the current one.

I'm purely pointing out that there's a question mark over what Ranieri said today. Okay, if his 'come and get me' was disingenuous then maybe we shouldn't believe anything else he says about it, but seeing as I'm not going to go out and start a riot about it, or chant abuse from the stands, I don't see the harm in asking the question.

Ranieri didn't say that he knew Vichai, he said "he knows me very well". If he wanted to say that he knew Vichai he would have said "I know him very well". I'm sure Ranieri knows the difference between 'he' and 'i', so immediately you're twisting what was actually said to make your offbeat interpretation sound more plausible.

And nothing you've said there denies that your latest conspiracy theory involves various club officials being engaged in a deliberate ploy to hide from the public the alleged fact that ranieri and Vichai knew each other before the appointment. So the question remains, if you think the club are capable of carrying out such an extravagant lie why would you believe anything else they said?

I think the bigger question here is regarding your motives for continuously inventing these increasingly strange conspiracy theories.

[inckley fox]

Ranieri didn't say that he knew Vichai, he said "he knows me very well". If he wanted to say that he knew Vichai he would have said "I know him very well". I'm sure Ranieri knows the difference between 'he' and 'i', so immediately you're twisting what was actually said to make your offbeat interpretation sound more plausible.

And nothing you've said there denies that your latest conspiracy theory involves various club officials being engaged in a deliberate ploy to hide from the public the alleged fact that ranieri and Vichai knew each other before the appointment. So the question remains, if you think the club are capable of carrying out such an extravagant lie why would you believe anything else they said?

I think the bigger question here is regarding your motives for continuously inventing these increasingly strange conspiracy theories.

 

I understand that you're saying he meant to say 'he knows of me' rather than 'he knows me', but that's not what he actually says. So I think I agreed with you in saying it could well just be his English. And even if he knew the board or they knew him I'm not sure it would be wrong for a board to have a future manager lined up. I'm just reminding you that lots of people were fairly sure that this wasn't the case and what he says here might ask a question about the idea that he'd had no contact with the board before his 'come and get me'.

 

So I haven't invented anything, I've taken real words for what they actually mean and asked whether they're meant to mean what they do. At first glance, if his use of English is good, he's saying that they had some sort of relationship going back a long way.

 

I'll tell you now that the difference between 'know' and 'know of/about' is a B1 level distinction, in language level terms, so very low level for a guy who's in a high profile job. But yes, he could have phrased it badly, in which case that's the matter resolved. I'm sure he'd have no problem with a journalist asking him to clarify what he meant, especially not if there's 'nothing to see here'.

 

That said, I'm a little confused as to why you're so impassioned at any perceived criticism of the board, even when I've gone out of my way to say that it might actually be to their credit if they did do this. I've never said I wouldn't be willing to believe his or their version of events, but even if I didn't, when did people ever stop asking questions because they couldn't trust the responses? If that happened you'd never hear another interview with a politician for the rest of your life!

 

And I think it's a little naive to consider it beyond a club to discuss a position with an unemployed manager while another manager is still in his job. Surely that happens all the time, and then the club in question lies about it afterwards. But, like I said, if it were the case here this still wouldn't mean that they were wrong to do it, nor would it necessarily impact on whether or not their decision to sack Pearson was the right one.

 

I'd love to know what my other 'conspiracy theories' were, though. Let's hope it's not the string of things you claimed I'd said before, none of which were even faintly like what I actually had said.

[Izzy]

I understand that you're saying he meant to say 'he knows of me' rather than 'he knows me', but that's not what he actually says. So I think I agreed with you in saying it could well just be his English. And even if he knew the board or they knew him I'm not sure it would be wrong for a board to have a future manager lined up. I'm just reminding you that lots of people were fairly sure that this wasn't the case and what he says here might ask a question about the idea that he'd had no contact with the board before his 'come and get me'.

 

So I haven't invented anything, I've taken real words for what they actually mean and asked whether they're meant to mean what they do. At first glance, if his use of English is good, he's saying that they had some sort of relationship going back a long way.

 

I'll tell you now that the difference between 'know' and 'know of/about' is a B1 level distinction, in language level terms, so very low level for a guy who's in a high profile job. But yes, he could have phrased it badly, in which case that's the matter resolved. I'm sure he'd have no problem with a journalist asking him to clarify what he meant, especially not if there's 'nothing to see here'.

 

That said, I'm a little confused as to why you're so impassioned at any perceived criticism of the board, even when I've gone out of my way to say that it might actually be to their credit if they did do this. I've never said I wouldn't be willing to believe his or their version of events, but even if I didn't, when did people ever stop asking questions because they couldn't trust the responses? If that happened you'd never hear another interview with a politician for the rest of your life!

 

And I think it's a little naive to consider it beyond a club to discuss a position with an unemployed manager while another manager is still in his job. Surely that happens all the time, and then the club in question lies about it afterwards. But, like I said, if it were the case here this still wouldn't mean that they were wrong to do it, nor would it necessarily impact on whether or not their decision to sack Pearson was the right one.

 

I'd love to know what my other 'conspiracy theories' were, though. Let's hope it's not the string of things you claimed I'd said before, none of which were even faintly like what I actually had said.

Mate I thought my wife was good at arguing - but I reckon she'd meet her match against you!

[inckley fox]

Mate I thought my wife was good at arguing - but I reckon she'd meet her match against you!

 

I don't know, my girlfriend frequently ripped me to shreds. As soon as anyone starts talking about something which is actually important, like science or technology, I'm a complete moron.

[Izzy]

I don't know, my girlfriend frequently ripped me to shreds. As soon as anyone starts talking about something which is actually important, like science or technology, I'm a complete moron.

[Lesta Legend]

Conspiracy theorist nut, with severe confirmation bias, shock horror #tinfoilhat

[Number 6]

Owners decided to twist when sat on 18, let's see what happens.

Not feeling great about this season to be honest.

Edit: annoying thing for me is that I think they decided they wanted an easier time of it and so got rid of Nige. I'm sure he was difficult to work with at times bit he was getting results.they decided they couldn't be arsed with that hassle and hoped someone else could replicate.

[inckley fox]

Conspiracy theorist nut, with severe confirmation bias, shock horror #tinfoilhat

 

It's not much of a conspiracy, is it? Asking whether someone meant what they actually said, pointing out that if they did it might ask questions of something else they definitely actually said; saying that it could indicate that our board have done what you'd probably expect a board to do in terms of maintaining good managerial contacts. Not exactly Did Stephen King Kill John Lennon?

 

We could call it the Our Board Probably Is A Normal Competent Board Theory, couldn't we? 

 

As for confirmation bias, if we work on the assumption that my prejudice is towards the board being incompetent, then confirmation bias would suggest that I'd be searching for evidence of them being incompetent. That's clearly the opposite of what I'm saying.

[Frank to be]

You are suggesting the owners have been involved in a cynical cover up though, which is in keeping with your other attempted character assassinations such as your "much-maligned monarch" comment among others.

Others might be fooled into thinking long posts equal good arguments but not me.

[inckley fox]

You are suggesting the owners have been involved in a cynical cover up though, which is in keeping with your other attempted character assassinations such as your "much-maligned monarch" comment among others.

Others might be fooled into thinking long posts equal good arguments but not me.

 

The Thai Monarch is much-maligned, that's not a conspiracy theory. I sent you loads of evidence detailing widespread criticisms of his restrictions on freedom of speech and human rights. I was simply pointing out that they had benefited from a close association with him, which you denied even existed, and that their wealth wasn't accumulated in the same sort of climate as it would have been in the UK or even the USA. But you know this, of course, it just doesn't suit you to know it.

 

As for character assassination, you're so worked up and upset by me having been nasty about King Power two weeks ago, or saying that polo has nothing to do with football, that you've failed to see what I'm saying - which is that they probably haven't done what Ranieri seemed to imply they'd done, and even if they had it wouldn't have been wrong.

 

It's quite funny to see how determined you are for me to hate them, just because you didn't read a few of my posts properly and find it easier to dismiss me as some kind of hysterical despiser of all things King Power. As if maybe I got scammed by them at an airport years ago and have never been able to let it go.

 

And it's quite insulting to suggest that people look at a long post and immediately think 'lots of words - he must be right'. They're not cavemen, you know. The posts are long because there are so many ways in which you manage to continue being wrong that it takes 200 words to even begin to point them all out.

[The Doctor]

You are suggesting the owners have been involved in a cynical cover up though, which is in keeping with your other attempted character assassinations such as your "much-maligned monarch" comment among others.

Others might be fooled into thinking long posts equal good arguments but not me.

As opposed to your conspiracy theories about pearson being a nasty bully and behaving well out of order with absolutely zero evidence, at least inckley has a quote that might just be badly phrased. The words stones and glass houses come to mind.

The Thai monarch is a bit of a dodgy character, any human rights charity can tell you that much.

[Frank to be]

The Thai Monarch is much-maligned, that's not a conspiracy theory. I sent you loads of evidence detailing widespread criticisms of his restrictions on freedom of speech and human rights. I was simply pointing out that they had benefited from a close association with him, which you denied even existed, and that their wealth wasn't accumulated in the same sort of climate as it would have been in the UK or even the USA. But you know this, of course, it just doesn't suit you to know it.

As for character assassination, you're so worked up and upset by me having been nasty about King Power two weeks ago, or saying that polo has nothing to do with football, that you've failed to see what I'm saying - which is that they probably haven't done what Ranieri seemed to imply they'd done, and even if they had it wouldn't have been wrong.

It's quite funny to see how determined you are for me to hate them, just because you didn't read a few of my posts properly and find it easier to dismiss me as some kind of hysterical despiser of all things King Power. As if maybe I got scammed by them at an airport years ago and have never been able to let it go.

And it's quite insulting to suggest that people look at a long post and immediately think 'lots of words - he must be right'. They're not cavemen, you know. The posts are long because there are so many ways in which you manage to continue being wrong that it takes 200 words to even begin to point them all out.

You provided one link with some criticisms of the political situation in Thailand which is connected to the monarchy in complex ways that you don't understand and which I said I didn't want to explain because I don't have to time to write a book. The point remains that you used this loose, misunderstood connection to conjure up an implied criticism of the club's owners and here you are again suggesting that they're involved in a cover up based on a quote you've wilfully misinterpreted.

For a guy so set on refusing to use assumptions in your assessment of Pearson's sacking you go to surprising lengths to find reasons to assume our owners are immoral, corrupt and dishonest.

[Frank to be]

As opposed to your conspiracy theories about pearson being a nasty bully and behaving well out of order with absolutely zero evidence, at least inckley has a quote that might just be badly phrased. The words stones and glass houses come to mind.

The Thai monarch is a bit of a dodgy character, any human rights charity can tell you that much.

We can go through Pearson's list of indiscretions again and I'll say that they provide enough evidence to suggest that Pearson was capable of making himself impossible to work with while you'll go full ostrich and deny even the possibility because you're too emotionally involved. But I can't really be bothered going through that again to be honest.

[Dan LCFC]

The sacking of Sven was a decision that simply had to be made. I was definitely not upset by it. I was more upset by the absolutely blatant reality that we had squandered absolutely silly money on shite and that we had no proper direction. The Millwall game was the final straw for me and I fully backed the owners' decision that time.

 

This decision is one I just cannot warm to and I won't until I see evidence that it was the right decision. That's that.

[CosbehFox]

You provided one link with some criticisms of the political situation in Thailand which is connected to the monarchy in complex ways that you don't understand and which I said I didn't want to explain because I don't have to time to write a book. The point remains that you used this loose, misunderstood connection to conjure up an implied criticism of the club's owners and here you are again suggesting that they're involved in a cover up based on a quote you've wilfully misinterpreted.

For a guy so set on refusing to use assumptions in your assessment of Pearson's sacking you go to surprising lengths to find reasons to assume our owners are immoral, corrupt and dishonest.

Associate the owners or not. Another forum I use had this to say about Thailand being used by ex-Pats as a 'haven'

Oh and Thailand is very friendly, except the bit when you dont travel too far south and enter the part that is currently at war between the government and islamic fundamentalists who want to chop your head off, or the places where the Russian Mafia have such a hold on government officals they are free to traffic humans into and out of brothels in case tourists get bored of wanting the local child prostitiutes and fancy something a bit more european looking. Over there they dont have free health care, free libraries, free art galleries, free musuems, citizens advice, social security, job seekers allowance, tax creidts, child benifit, social housing, disability benifit, legal aid, work protection rights, free prescriptions, Health and Saftey at work legislation, [wipping patriotic tear from eye] anti child labour laws, working time laws, social mobility, closed sewers, anti age/sex/sexuality/race discrimination laws, food hygene laws, safe roads.

[The Doctor]

We can go through Pearson's list of indiscretions again and I'll say that they provide enough evidence to suggest that Pearson was capable of making himself impossible to work with while you'll go full ostrich and deny even the possibility because you're too emotionally involved. But I can't really be bothered going through that again to be honest.

Which indiscretions?

Telling the fan to **** off and die, and if you believe those around that area, said fan was making pretty lewd comments about Pearsons family - unless we're suggesting now that the owners are disrespectful hounds, then that's irrelevant.

The incident with McArthur which even the player says was a joke? Clearly a man that has fun is impossible to work with...

The ostrich incident? Are you calling for Claudio to be sacked then because he's said his share of bizarre things in the past?

[st albans fox]

Which indiscretions?

Telling the fan to **** off and die, and if you believe those around that area, said fan was making pretty lewd comments about Pearsons family - unless we're suggesting now that the owners are disrespectful hounds, then that's irrelevant.

The incident with McArthur which even the player says was a joke? Clearly a man that has fun is impossible to work with...

The ostrich incident? Are you calling for Claudio to be sacked then because he's said his share of bizarre things in the past?

Doc - the MacArthur incident did for Nigel. THAT photo, whilst only showing a tiny part of the incident is there forever and can be dragged up again and again. things people say are not so easily dragged up. Visual much more so.

still waiting to see us spend some money so we know in which direction the perspectives differed. at the moment, could be argued that Nigel wanted to spend more than the owners would sanction.

[Buce]

I understand that you're saying he meant to say 'he knows of me' rather than 'he knows me', but that's not what he actually says. So I think I agreed with you in saying it could well just be his English. And even if he knew the board or they knew him I'm not sure it would be wrong for a board to have a future manager lined up. I'm just reminding you that lots of people were fairly sure that this wasn't the case and what he says here might ask a question about the idea that he'd had no contact with the board before his 'come and get me'.

So I haven't invented anything, I've taken real words for what they actually mean and asked whether they're meant to mean what they do. At first glance, if his use of English is good, he's saying that they had some sort of relationship going back a long way.

I'll tell you now that the difference between 'know' and 'know of/about' is a B1 level distinction, in language level terms, so very low level for a guy who's in a high profile job. But yes, he could have phrased it badly, in which case that's the matter resolved. I'm sure he'd have no problem with a journalist asking him to clarify what he meant, especially not if there's 'nothing to see here'.

That said, I'm a little confused as to why you're so impassioned at any perceived criticism of the board, even when I've gone out of my way to say that it might actually be to their credit if they did do this. I've never said I wouldn't be willing to believe his or their version of events, but even if I didn't, when did people ever stop asking questions because they couldn't trust the responses? If that happened you'd never hear another interview with a politician for the rest of your life!

And I think it's a little naive to consider it beyond a club to discuss a position with an unemployed manager while another manager is still in his job. Surely that happens all the time, and then the club in question lies about it afterwards. But, like I said, if it were the case here this still wouldn't mean that they were wrong to do it, nor would it necessarily impact on whether or not their decision to sack Pearson was the right one.

I'd love to know what my other 'conspiracy theories' were, though. Let's hope it's not the string of things you claimed I'd said before, none of which were even faintly like what I actually had said.

More good stuff.

You are fast becoming one of my favourite posters.

[Guest MattP]

More good stuff.

You are fast becoming one of my favourite posters.

Me too.

I'm ashamed to say I didn't know to much of him before this last couple of weeks but his postings recently have been magnificent.

[Buce]

Me too.

I'm ashamed to say I didn't know to much of him before this last couple of weeks but his postings recently have been magnificent.

Absolutely.

He is to the Football Forum, what Alf Bentley is to General Chat: he says everything that I want to say, but with more eloquence.

[Frank to be]

Associate the owners or not. Another forum I use had this to say about Thailand being used by ex-Pats as a 'haven'

Oh and Thailand is very friendly, except the bit when you dont travel too far south and enter the part that is currently at war between the government and islamic fundamentalists who want to chop your head off, or the places where the Russian Mafia have such a hold on government officals they are free to traffic humans into and out of brothels in case tourists get bored of wanting the local child prostitiutes and fancy something a bit more european looking. Over there they dont have free health care, free libraries, free art galleries, free musuems, citizens advice, social security, job seekers allowance, tax creidts, child benifit, social housing, disability benifit, legal aid, work protection rights, free prescriptions, Health and Saftey at work legislation, [wipping patriotic tear from eye] anti child labour laws, working time laws, social mobility, closed sewers, anti age/sex/sexuality/race discrimination laws, food hygene laws, safe roads.

Great, some no mark who can't spell trots out a load of ignorant nonsense on a forum. What on earth does this have to do with the football club?

[Guest MattP]

Absolutely.

He is to the Football Forum, what Alf Bentley is to General Chat: he says everything that I want to say, but with more eloquence.

No argument from me there.