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

[Frank to be]

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?

Like I said, you'll refuse to entertain the possibility that Pearson is capable of making himself impossible to work with because you're heartbroken by his departure. There's no point going through this again.

[CosbehFox]

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?

Aye, a few spelling errors don't hide his point. It's not ignorant nonsense, awful lot of that is fact.

I think it's fairly evident what it has to do with this football club. It could all go very much like Man City's Thai period if the politics get nasty.

[Frank to be]

Aye, a few spelling errors don't hide his point. It's not ignorant nonsense, awful lot of that is fact.

I think it's fairly evident what it has to do with this football club. It could all go very much like Man City's Thai period if the politics get nasty.

So because the welfare state and health and safety laws aren't as advanced in Thailand as they are in the UK and because ex-Thai prime minister thaksin (who I might add was actually a socialist intent on improving social security) once owned man City before selling them to a Sheik, that means Leicester City is at risk? Sorry no, I don't think that association is fairly evident at all. It's utterly absurd.

[Webbo]

Aye, a few spelling errors don't hide his point. It's not ignorant nonsense, awful lot of that is fact.

I think it's fairly evident what it has to do with this football club. It could all go very much like Man City's Thai period if the politics get nasty.

Could you enlighten me then because I can't see it. I'm sure there's a lot of corruption in Thailand, what does that prove in relation to the running of this club?

[Mike Oxlong]

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?

Just cos sumwon cant spel dusnt meen they dont have a vallid point.

[Frank to be]

Just cos sumwon cant spel dusnt meen they dont have a vallid point.

Englund has child raep gangs n lots ov celebrities are poaedofiles n David camrun is cutting benefitts there4 Newcastle United betta be careful cuz der owner is English innit

A "valid point" indeed.

[CosbehFox]

Could you enlighten me then because I can't see it. I'm sure there's a lot of corruption in Thailand, what does that prove in relation to the running of this club?

King Power supported by the Thai Government which is volatile to be overthrown.

[katieakita]

Also there is plenty of corruption in Russia so are people going to point the finger at Chelski. Theories and guesses and rumours and plenty of them, Pearson has gone (I really rated the guy) so we move on. With how they have pumped in obscene amounts of money into the club the owners have shown they have a long term plan for  the club. They have overhauled the club from the bottom to the top and have invested huge amounts into the infrastructure of the club. Though many demand to know why they have parted with the manager they have and  everything else seems to be going on as normal, we are in a better position than we were this time last year.

 

One minute everyone on here is singing the praises of Walsh Snr and his scouting abilities now for some we are in chaos. The scouting network is still here and they will be looking at players to improve us. The club have already spent more this pre season than last and  it is clear they plan to strengthen so yes support the club and despite all the stick coming their way I still cannot find a reason not to trust them.

[Babylon]

I disagree. I think Ranieri is good enough at English to be able to say "I have known Vichai for a long time" if that's what he meant. I think Ranieri was saying "he knows me" as in "he knows a lot about my career", from which "he follows me" makes sense as "he has followed my career". It indicates Vichai undertook some thorough research into ranieri before appointing him, which is of course exactly what you would expect. It doesn't indicate they knew each other personally.

Pains me to say it, but the way I read it was the same as this.

[Carl the Llama]

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.

And I suppose this is ironclad proof that a prehistoric reptile resides in Scotland?:

I mean who wants to drag up the boring fact that the people directly involved came out afterwards to say there wasn't actually anything in it after all?

[inckley fox]

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.

 

No, not at all. You've decided that I did all of those things. I said that if we wanted to make Pearson's sacking a matter of 'who do we trust the most?' then you can pull out all sorts of things against either side. Somebody pointed out that the Thais' business-expertise must count for something and I suggested that, in a notoriously corrupt regime and when you have a close association with a monarch who is accused in some quarters of human rights / freedom of speech abuses, being successful might come about in a different way to in the UK.

 

First you denied they had any particularly strong association, then you denied that the regime is heavily criticised and now your argument has descended to 'I know more about you than this but I can't be bothered to explain it' or 'why do you hate them so much?' I quite clearly don't hate them, I just feel that if we're to agree with the sacking then we either need a sound explanation, which we've not had yet and may never have, or it will have to work out in terms of success on the field.

 

So no, I don't believe our owners are corrupt or immoral, just as you would help yourself a great deal if you stopped guessing such things about Pearson. I've just pointed out that we can ask questions of their characters as well as his, based on association and rumour and deduction and hearsay, so that's not a sound basis for justifying the sacking. You've reacted to this in the same way I'd expect someone to react if I'd just spat on their grandmother.

[inckley fox]

Pains me to say it, but the way I read it was the same as this.

 

It's awkwardly phrased and it could mean one of two things. Like I said, it wouldn't do any harm to ask him whether they 'knew' him, or 'knew about / of' him. And it's a reasonable question to ask why he needed to go to the press if the board either knew him, or had followed his career for a long time.

 

Either way, as I keep saying, I think it would be sensible for a board to have an idea of who their next manager might be. It would be to their credit if they had already established some kind of relationship with potential future managers, just as it would be to their credit if they were closely following potential future managers. It's a question rather than an accusation, if you see what I mean, about two statements by Ranieri which may or may not be easy to reconcile with one another.

[Frank to be]

No, not at all. You've decided that I did all of those things. I said that if we wanted to make Pearson's sacking a matter of 'who do we trust the most?' then you can pull out all sorts of things against either side. Somebody pointed out that the Thais' business-expertise must count for something and I suggested that, in a notoriously corrupt regime and when you have a close association with a monarch who is accused in some quarters of human rights / freedom of speech abuses, being successful might come about in a different way to in the UK.

 

First you denied they had any particularly strong association, then you denied that the regime is heavily criticised and now your argument has descended to 'I know more about you than this but I can't be bothered to explain it' or 'why do you hate them so much?' I quite clearly don't hate them, I just feel that if we're to agree with the sacking then we either need a sound explanation, which we've not had yet and may never have, or it will have to work out in terms of success on the field.

 

So no, I don't believe our owners are corrupt or immoral, just as you would help yourself a great deal if you stopped guessing such things about Pearson. I've just pointed out that we can ask questions of their characters as well as his, based on association and rumour and deduction and hearsay, so that's not a sound basis for justifying the sacking. You've reacted to this in the same way I'd expect someone to react if I'd just spat on their grandmother.

 

I still do deny those things. You've taken political criticisms and connected them to our owners in a way that can only be described as desperate. You've invented a whole conspiracy based on one quote from Ranieri that you know you've misinterpreted.

 

I don't need to make any desperate connections or invent conspiracy theories based on questionable association and rumour and deduction and hearsay to explain why I think it's perfectly plausible that Pearson made himself impossible to work with. His very public and undeniable list of indiscretions is enough for any rational observer to accept the possibility.

 

That's the fundamental difference here, your views are based on very debatable assumptions while mine are based on what we actually know from what is available in the public domain.

[inckley fox]

Englund has child raep gangs n lots ov celebrities are poaedofiles n David camrun is cutting benefitts there4 Newcastle United betta be careful cuz der owner is English innit

A "valid point" indeed.

 

It's different, though. In the UK we don't have restrictions on freedom of speech to the extent that they do in Thailand, but in terms of 'much-maligned' leaders, some might point towards someone like Tony Blair as being the closest we've had in recent history to an equivalent. Thatcher, perhaps.

 

If a set of football club owners who'd been knighted or even personally renamed by said PM, had a company name which apparently expressed support for said PM, received edicts from said PM, and who waved pictures of said PM around at half-time then people might consider that to be something more of an association with his regime than simply being in the same country at the same time as said PM.

[zante]

Any pics or Vids of the Thai king being waved around at our ground ?

[shade]

It's different, though. In the UK we don't have restrictions on freedom of speech to the extent that they do in Thailand, but in terms of 'much-maligned' leaders, some might point towards someone like Tony Blair as being the closest we've had in recent history to an equivalent. Thatcher, perhaps.

If a set of football club owners who'd been knighted or even personally renamed by said PM, had a company name which apparently expressed support for said PM, received edicts from said PM, and who waved pictures of said PM around at half-time then people might consider that to be something more of an association with his regime than simply being in the same country at the same time as said PM.

are you having a giraffe? the western capitalist world is one of the shadiest, nepotistic, cesspits imaginable. I'm not even going all Michael Moore, the links between business owners, governments, peers etc is all over the place.

[Frank to be]

It's different, though. In the UK we don't have restrictions on freedom of speech to the extent that they do in Thailand, but in terms of 'much-maligned' leaders, some might point towards someone like Tony Blair as being the closest we've had in recent history to an equivalent. Thatcher, perhaps.

 

If a set of football club owners who'd been knighted or even personally renamed by said PM, had a company name which apparently expressed support for said PM, received edicts from said PM, and who waved pictures of said PM around at half-time then people might consider that to be something more of an association with his regime than simply being in the same country at the same time as said PM.

 

Our owners don't appear to be politically connected to any particular degree so i'm not sure why you keep bringing politics into the discussion. The original post to which I responded attempted to use the status of Health and Safety legislation and the lack of free healthcare (which is basically incorrect anyway) in Thailand to criticise the owners. Our owners have a royal connection, does that mean they're personally responsible for the status of the welfare state? Of course not. These are ridiculous points. Absolutely ridiculous.

[inckley fox]

I still do deny those things. You've taken political criticisms and connected them to our owners in a way that can only be described as desperate. You've invented a whole conspiracy based on one quote from Ranieri that you know you've misinterpreted.

 

I don't need to make any desperate connections or invent conspiracy theories based on questionable association and rumour and deduction and hearsay to explain why I think it's perfectly plausible that Pearson made himself impossible to work with. His very public and undeniable list of indiscretions is enough for any rational observer to accept the possibility.

 

That's the fundamental difference here, your views are based on very debatable assumptions while mine are based on what we actually know from what is available in the public domain.

 

I think I've made perfectly clear on multiple occasions that I don't necessarily think Ranieri meant to say what he did say. I didn't misinterpret anything, if you say 'I know somebody' or 'he knows me' then that indicates a relationship, as opposed to 'he knows about me'. As someone who writes and corrects B1 level exams, I can assure you that this is a fairly low level language distinction.

 

Like I said, it's probably a minor error, but seeing as we're all trying to make sense of a confusing situation there would be no harm in asking a civil question about it.

 

Why is it that you not only 'accept the possibility' that Pearson could have made himself impossible to work with, even though there has been no evidence to back this up, but actually embrace it as the most likely scenario; whereas on the other hand you can't 'accept the possibility' that a board might monitor or engage with their next team manager before getting rid of the current one? Because I can assure you there's plenty of evidence of that happening across football and, in the past, here at Leicester. It happened here the first time Pearson left the club and I provided you with the quote, from Pearson, to prove it.

 

So I think it's worth a civil question, as opposed to the flurry of unsubstantiated accusations you've levelled at Pearson. Nothing more. No conspiracy theories (not that 'Our Board Is A Normal Competent Board Doing Business In The Way Most Competent Boards Do' would be much of a conspiracy theory). No wild accusations. Just a question. And if they did know him beforehand, then fair enough, they'd done their homework.

 

As for the point about the political climate in Thailand, I've explained many times that if you say 'Pearson probably deserved the sack for some or other reason which I don't know what it is, because he once grappled with a player, had a go at some fans and called someone an ostrich, whereas we have no reason to doubt our board' then I can also come up with a whole bunch of prior incidents and associations which imply that our board might not be perfect either: Close affiliations with monarchs accused of repressing freedom of speech, alleged scams and similar past decisions made and, in other cases, possibly made during their time at LCFC would obviously be among them. They're all most likely as irrelevant as the evidence you provide against Pearson.

 

The point you continue to miss is that we don't know that Pearson deserved the sack. All we know is that he did an excellent job and was then sacked. I'm happy to accept that the board could have been in the right because I don't especially believe they're corrupt or malicious, but until they back up their decision it's impossible to agree with it. We're left with a to-and-fro of 'well he once did this and well they once did that'.

 

Alternatively it might work out on the football field and we'll forget all about it. Let's hope we do. But you don't seem to have figured out yet that when you pour scorn on the questions I've asked of the board, you're also underlining how shaky your argument - based on speculation rather than fact - is. Because the facts show a good manager inexplicably fired, and the onus is on them to justify that decision, one way or the other.

[inckley fox]

Our owners don't appear to be politically connected to any particular degree so i'm not sure why you keep bringing politics into the discussion. The original post to which I responded attempted to use the status of Health and Safety legislation and the lack of free healthcare (which is basically incorrect anyway) in Thailand to criticise the owners. Our owners have a royal connection, does that mean they're personally responsible for the status of the welfare state? Of course not. These are ridiculous points. Absolutely ridiculous.

 

You clearly ignored all of the stuff I explained to you about Human Rights Watch, the coups of 2007 and 2008, Lese Majeste, political prisoners etc. Or you could just look it up for yourself, it's not hard to find.

 

And you really need to stop the hysterical comments like 'you're saying they're personally responsible for the status of the welfare state', which is something else straight out of your vivid imagination. I've never even implied such a thing.

 

This must be the hundredth time I've said this, and I apologise to others for all of the long posts but it's necessary when people (or, rather, two or three people) keep misrepresenting every last word I write. What I said a long time ago - and you keep misquoting what I said, and have a habit of doing so massively out of context, or ignoring the bits that don't suit you - was that: 

 

(a) If you want to justify Pearson's sacking because he 'probably did something beyond the pale' or 'probably became impossible to work with', based on a whole series of prior incidents involving the media or the fans, but never his success as a football manager or his relationship with the board, then that's a highly speculative and one-sided position.

 

(b) Success in business, wealth and how it's attained has, throughout history, to some degree been a reflection of the political climate in which it's attained. Thailand is a notoriously corrupt political climate. Its monarchy has also been accused of human rights and freedom of press abuses. The current board accrued much of their wealth in such a climate, with close associations with the monarch.

 

© The current board entered into takeover talks before Pearson's first exit and had been present at the club, as had Sousa. The takeover began within days of Sousa's appointment and it's perfectly possible they could have intervened in either decision, because they publicly intervened in many other decisions that same summer, before their takeover was formalised.

 

(d) If we want to form an argument against Pearson in the way you've formed it (see (a)) then we can also come up with highly speculative reasons to doubt the board (see (b) ©). Such as the climate in which they made their money, their associations with and vocal support for a widely criticised leader, or even accusations of scams involving King Power / past questionable decisions they've made at the club (appointing Sven etc.) or may have contributed to (Pearson for Sousa).

 

(e) To take such a stance would make no more sense than saying 'we all know why Pearson got, and deserved to get, sacked because of this series of utterly irrelevant incidents'. In other words, we don't know if Pearson's public conduct is relevant to his sacking any more than we know that the board's management of the club, or how they do their business in general, bears relation to (b) and ©.

 

(f) Therefore we can't rule out the possibility that the board were in the right and are competent managers of our football club, but neither can we justify a decision for which we've been given no justification.

[Webbo]

King Power supported by the Thai Government which is volatile to be overthrown.

And this affects us how?

[Frank to be]

You clearly ignored all of the stuff I explained to you about Human Rights Watch, the coups of 2007 and 2008, Lese Majeste, political prisoners etc. Or you could just look it up for yourself, it's not hard to find.

 

And you really need to stop the hysterical comments like 'you're saying they're personally responsible for the status of the welfare state', which is something else straight out of your vivid imagination. I've never even implied such a thing.

 

This must be the hundredth time I've said this, and I apologise to others for all of the long posts but it's necessary when people (or, rather, two or three people) keep misrepresenting every last word I write. What I said a long time ago - and you keep misquoting what I said, and have a habit of doing so massively out of context, or ignoring the bits that don't suit you - was that: 

 

(a) If you want to justify Pearson's sacking because he 'probably did something beyond the pale' or 'probably became impossible to work with', based on a whole series of prior incidents involving the media or the fans, but never his success as a football manager or his relationship with the board, then that's a highly speculative and one-sided position.

 

(b) Success in business, wealth and how it's attained has, throughout history, to some degree been a reflection of the political climate in which it's attained. Thailand is a notoriously corrupt political climate. Its monarchy has also been accused of human rights and freedom of press abuses. The current board accrued much of their wealth in such a climate, with close associations with the monarch.

 

© The current board entered into takeover talks before Pearson's first exit and had been present at the club, as had Sousa. The takeover began within days of Sousa's appointment and it's perfectly possible they could have intervened in either decision, because they publicly intervened in many other decisions that same summer, before their takeover was formalised.

 

(d) If we want to form an argument against Pearson in the way you've formed it (see (a)) then we can also come up with highly speculative reasons to doubt the board (see (b) ©). Such as the climate in which they made their money, their associations with and vocal support for a widely criticised leader, or even accusations of scams involving King Power / past questionable decisions they've made at the club (appointing Sven etc.) or may have contributed to (Pearson for Sousa).

 

(e) To take such a stance would make no more sense than saying 'we all know why Pearson got, and deserved to get, sacked because of this series of utterly irrelevant incidents'. In other words, we don't know if Pearson's public conduct is relevant to his sacking any more than we know that the board's management of the club, or how they do their business in general, bears relation to (b) and ©.

 

(f) Therefore we can't rule out the possibility that the board were in the right and are competent managers of our football club, but neither can we justify a decision for which we've been given no justification.

 

I haven't ignored it, you've provided some commentary (from just the one source lets not forget) on the political turmoil in Thailand. There is no evidence whatsoever that our owners are in any way involved. Being connected to the monarchy doesn't mean you're responsible for political turmoil or that you have any connection to it at all. You're using this alleged connection as evidence that our owners are immoral or corrupt yet it's a completely fabricated connection, there is no evidence that it exists.

 

(a) I've merely stated that Pearson's prior conduct, captured on film and therefore totally undeniable is enough to allow for the possibility that his behaviour behind closed doors made for a justifiable sacking. There are no assumptions present in this argument.

 

(b) you're making an assumption, pure guesswork, that the owners are involved in political problems when there is absolutely no evidence for that whatsoever.

 

© you're making an assumption, pure guesswork, that the owners were the primary reason for Pearson walking out on the club before Sousa arrived when there is absolutely no evidence for that whatsoever.

 

(d) this is basically a restatement of point b, where again you've made assumptions, pure guesswork, that the owners are necessarily immoral or corrupt because they have a royal connection that yo seem to think also means they must be involved in the separate field of politics when there is absolutely no evidence for that whatsoever.

 

(e) there is evidence - widely available videos depicting several high profile incidents involving Pearson - that provide any rational person with enough evidence to accept the possibility that Pearson made himself impossible to work with. There is no evidence whatsoever for the owners being involved in the political turmoil. To recap, one side of the argument contains evidence, the other doesn't.

 

(f) fine, we can't rule either situation out, that's a fine position to take. What isn't fine is fabricating evidence to discredit the owners.

[The Doctor]

(e) there is evidence - widely available videos depicting several high profile incidents involving Pearson - that provide any rational person with enough evidence to accept the possibility that Pearson made himself impossible to work with. There is no evidence whatsoever for the owners being involved in the political turmoil. To recap, one side of the argument contains evidence, the other doesn't.

 

Which incidents are they? Are they the ones I've already corrected you on like McArthur or other ones?

Your last line is correct, quite unfortunately for you.

[thursday_next]

People need to get away from all this Thai business anyway, it's not going to lead anywhere. It wouldn't matter if our club was run by the NRA or Colombian drug barons to be quite honest, as long as they stump up the money for transfer fees and wages, and keep relatively quiet about it. I have got to the stage in my life where I no longer believe in the perfectibility of the species, if indeed I ever had it. Top and Vichal are more or less alright with me, as owners go.

 

I even have to applaud them for sending Susan Whelan out with all this guff rather than appearing themselves. It shows respect to us. It shows they're not going to lie to us with a straight face. That's important, to my mind. It's more than Mike Ashley or Vincent Tan would do.

 

The bookmakers over a week before the sacking had Pearson down as 3/1 favourite for the first managerial casualty. The next guy was 6/1. That is absolutely extraordinary. The bookies must have known something was about to happen at the club. The first time I saw this I thought instinctively of Henry Winter's interview with Pearson in which he claimed that someone at the club was out to get him, and they would win in the end. This was a long time before the Thai holiday, so whether or not Pearson had an outburst at that stage is irrelevant. If the owners wanted to keep Pearson then basically something could have been cobbled together, even giving James Pearson a new contract. In the long run, what would James Pearson have meant to the owners? It would all have long since blown over.

 

Let's face it, Pearson was sacked for football reasons and for being honest, i.e. difficult to deal with. My guess - and it is only a guess - is that he was sacked for being unable to commit to the owner's ambitions for European football in two years. He was sacked for being honest, and pointing out that it takes longer than that to build a team, as opposed to a collection of individuals which is inevitably going to fall apart at some point. I think that you could have offered Pearson £90m and he wouldn't know what to do with it, and quite right too. 

 

Well, now we have Ranieri. He is perfectly happy to submit to the owner's requirements, and who knows, he may be right. If he isn't, then he simply trousers £2m-£3m and walks away from the project. People will say 'What about Chelsea? Juventus? Inter Milan? Monaco?'. The only problem is that we aren't any of those teams, we're Leicester City, and we spent much of last season at the bottom, even with Esteban Cambiasso. I'd much rather see a man, for all his faults, who has LCFC in his veins. The owners have buggered that up, and it will take me a long time to forgive them for that.

 

The people that are anti-Pearson were anti-Pearson from the moment he arrived at the club. They got even more anti-Pearson, if that were possible, at the second time around. Please see Bentley's Roof as confirmation of this. I don't blame them. If Tim 'nice but dim' Sherwood got the job here, I would have the greatest possible difficulty in ascribing to him any improvement in the club's standing. I just don't like the man. If Vichal and Top decided to sack him, I would be dancing around the room, and would happily go along with Frank To Be's arguments, even though I would be convinced they were complete nonsense. All that would matter to me is that Tim Sherwood was no longer manager at this club. Hurrah!  

 

I liked Pearson, and would have liked him to carry on his job here for another five years. What we would have achieved is anybody's guess. At the moment Vichal and Top are off my Christmas list, and they are likely to stay so for a long time. It's just as well, because I don't think I could have stretched to a Golden Buddha yet again.

[Frank to be]

Which incidents are they? Are they the ones I've already corrected you on like McArthur or other ones?

Your last line is correct, quite unfortunately for you.

You haven't corrected me on anything, and neither could you. All of the incidents are well known and in the public domain. As I've already said, I've no interest in debating this with someone who is so emotionally involved that they're unable to see things rationally.

[Webbo]

 

 

The bookmakers over a week before the sacking had Pearson down as 3/1 favourite for the first managerial casualty. The next guy was 6/1. That is absolutely extraordinary. The bookies must have known something was about to happen at the club. 

 

 

The bookies had Preki as favourite for the job, it proves absolutely nothing. If they had know he was a goner he'd have been odds on or they would have stopped taking bets.