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

[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.

[Webbo]

You are quite the conundrum Mr Frank:  On the one hand you'll make posts full of clear. rational thought about not irrationally jumping on Ranieri's back or the owners', but then there are threads like this where you keep refusing to accept that the McArthur 'strangling' was a non-incident and that FOADgate was probably a justified reaction.  

 

It's even more bizarre given you're clearly aware that these "incidents are well known and in the public domain" yet you still somehow manage to misunderstand them entirely even with a messageboard full of people putting you to rights on the matter.

Lets not pretend that there weren't incidents, all of which point to a volatile personality or short temper. Pearson throwing a wobbly would be entirely in character.

[The Doctor]

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.

Which incidents are they? Don't dodge the question. It can't be FOAD because that was by all accounts justified and is irrelevant unless the owners are lewd pigs (and there's absolutely zero reason to suspect that), in which case the fault would lie with them again, nor could it be the McArthur incident that's well known as a joke, according to the player himself.

[The Doctor]

Lets not pretend that there weren't incidents, all of which point to a volatile personality or short temper. Pearson throwing a wobbly would be entirely in character.

Well they don't, one points to being quirky in their sense of humour, another was a perfectly human reaction, and if the claims are true, remarkably reserved, far more than I suspect most would be. The only one you can possibly hold up as that is calling a journalist a ****, and it's well known that Pearson doesn't like the limelight of the media, that his persona in most interviews with all except the very best (Henry Winter) is nothing like the real man.

[Frank to be]

Lets not pretend that there weren't incidents, all of which point to a volatile personality or short temper. Pearson throwing a wobbly would be entirely in character.

That's it in a nutshell.

If people can't accept this possibility then they're being irrational, simple as that.

[Webbo]

Well they don't, one points to being quirky in their sense of humour, another was a perfectly human reaction, and if the claims are true, remarkably reserved, far more than I suspect most would be. The only one you can possibly hold up as that is calling a journalist a ****, and it's well known that Pearson doesn't like the limelight of the media, that his persona in most interviews with all except the very best (Henry Winter) is nothing like the real man.

What about ostrichgate? 

 

I didn't care how he treated journalists, The throttling made me cringe a bit but I didn't see it as a sacking offence. To outsider looking in these may appear charming idiosyncrasies I guess if you're working with someone like that on a daily basis you might feel differently though.

[fleckneymike]

Which incidents are they? Don't dodge the question. It can't be FOAD because that was by all accounts justified and is irrelevant unless the owners are lewd pigs (and there's absolutely zero reason to suspect that), in which case the fault would lie with them again, nor could it be the McArthur incident that's well known as a joke, according to the player himself.

 

Pearson was a dead man walking from the day he was sacked and then unsacked.

 

At the risk of repeating myself there will always be a sizable minority who will not accept any reason for Pearson's sacking, we may we never know why he was dismissed but it is quite interesting that his backroom team didn't walk when he was relieved of his duties.

[Harry - LCFC]

Pearson was a dead man walking from the day he was sacked and then unsacked.

 

At the risk of repeating myself there will always be a sizable minority who will not accept any reason for Pearson's sacking, we may we never know why he was dismissed but it is quite interesting that his backroom team didn't walk when he was relieved of his duties.

 

I think we have to be given a reason before you can go around making claims like that.

[Matt]

 

Oh how we laughed....

[fleckneymike]

I think we have to be given a reason before you can go around making claims like that.

 

A reason by me or a reason by the club?

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Well they don't, one points to being quirky in their sense of humour, another was a perfectly human reaction, and if the claims are true, remarkably reserved, far more than I suspect most would be. The only one you can possibly hold up as that is calling a journalist a ****, and it's well known that Pearson doesn't like the limelight of the media, that his persona in most interviews with all except the very best (Henry Winter) is nothing like the real man.

"The real man"! Ludicrous words. Just how do you know what that is?

 

Come on, supply some facts. You cannot of course, for that could only be YOUR opinion of him. None of us know "the real man".

[CosbehFox]

Pearson was a dead man walking from the day he was sacked and then unsacked.

At the risk of repeating myself there will always be a sizable minority who will not accept any reason for Pearson's sacking, we may we never know why he was dismissed but it is quite interesting that his backroom team didn't walk when he was relieved of his duties.

I thought the same of his back room staff but the Italians who've appear suggest that it's only a matter of time when its all passed over.

[The Doctor]

What about ostrichgate? 

 

I didn't care how he treated journalists, The throttling made me cringe a bit but I didn't see it as a sacking offence. To outsider looking in these may appear charming idiosyncrasies I guess if you're working with someone like that on a daily basis you might feel differently though.

A bizzare comment but no weirder than Ranieri calling the press vicious lions at the end of his time with chelsea.

But by all accounts that's not him on a day to day basis, the only thing you can remotely construe as being a sign of a temper was the **** comment, and that's an entirely different ballgame to day to day work. By his own admission he can seem a bit rude or distant when he's preoccupied with work, but I don't think I have to say how stupid a reason that would be for suggesting he's difficult to work with.

  

Pearson was a dead man walking from the day he was sacked and then unsacked.

 

At the risk of repeating myself there will always be a sizable minority who will not accept any reason for Pearson's sacking, we may we never know why he was dismissed but it is quite interesting that his backroom team didn't walk when he was relieved of his duties.

Why when they could wait a few weeks until the new manager brought in his own and they'd get good payoffs?

[Harry - LCFC]

A reason by me or a reason by the club?

 

The club, people are more likely to react honestly if they believe it to be the real reason rather than a hypothetical one. This vague 'break down in relations' remark we've been left doesn't help us much.

[thursday_next]

Pearson was a dead man walking from the day he was sacked and then unsacked.

 

At the risk of repeating myself there will always be a sizable minority who will not accept any reason for Pearson's sacking, we may we never know why he was dismissed but it is quite interesting that his backroom team didn't walk when he was relieved of his duties.

 

They'd have to resign, which would have meant no money. It's likely to be more important whether they resign when Pearson has a new job, which may be a little while considering all the legal ramifications of this.

[Webbo]

The club, people are more likely to react honestly if they believe it to be the real reason rather than a hypothetical one. This vague 'break down in relations' remark we've been left doesn't help us much.

But we all know there are confidentiality issues here. 

[fleckneymike]

The club, people are more likely to react honestly if they believe it to be the real reason rather than a hypothetical one. This vague 'break down in relations' remark we've been left doesn't help us much.

 

It helps quite a lot. The board no longer felt as though they could work with him.

 

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that this sacking is a cumulative result of many incidents rather than just one event.

[fleckneymike]

A bizzare comment but no weirder than Ranieri calling the press vicious lions at the end of his time with chelsea.

But by all accounts that's not him on a day to day basis, the only thing you can remotely construe as being a sign of a temper was the **** comment, and that's an entirely different ballgame to day to day work. By his own admission he can seem a bit rude or distant when he's preoccupied with work, but I don't think I have to say how stupid a reason that would be for suggesting he's difficult to work with.

  

Why when they could wait a few weeks until the new manager brought in his own and they'd get good payoffs?

 

Claudio has been here nearly two weeks and there doesn't seem to be an iminent parting of the waves. You'd think that from a purely coaching point of view the club would remove the system not just the man, this seems to indicate the issue is the man and the man alone.

[Harry - LCFC]

 

But we all know there are confidentiality issues here. 

 

Sure, but even if the explanation is being withheld for good reason I'm still not going to sit hear and be satisfied that dismissing Pearson was the right call.

 

 

It helps quite a lot. The board no longer felt as though they could work with him.

 

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that this sacking is a cumulative result of many incidents rather than just one event.

 

If that's the case then I'm absolutely convinced it was the wrong decision.

 

Looking at last season's incidents I don't believe that adding them up comes anywhere close to providing a good reason to dismiss the manager. They were all petty, but ultimately insignificant, outbursts. I would only accept a very serious clash in the summer as a justification for dismissing Pearson.

[The Doctor]

Claudio has been here nearly two weeks and there doesn't seem to be an iminent parting of the waves. You'd think that from a purely coaching point of view the club would remove the system not just the man, this seems to indicate the issue is the man and the man alone.

Well there is, Ranieri bringing in his own staff for starters but that they've not binned the coaches isn't surprising, you leave as much together as possible for the transition and for caretakers - remember when Levein was sacked and his assistant Kelly remained? I doubt that was because of Levein as a person rather than the results...

[Carl the Llama]

Lets not pretend that there weren't incidents, all of which point to a volatile personality or short temper. Pearson throwing a wobbly would be entirely in character.

From his Stringer interviews, Ostrichgate, and I suppose FOAD (though that one by all accounts is debatable whether it indicates particular volatility of character), you definitely get a sense of a man who will vehemently defend his views even when it may seem wiser not to - it's one of the things that endeared him to me.  Obviously I can see where the idea that he got heated up and said the wrong things is coming from, I just think the wrong examples are being held up time and time again.

 

Pearson was a dead man walking from the day he was sacked and then unsacked.

 

At the risk of repeating myself there will always be a sizable minority who will not accept any reason for Pearson's sacking, we may we never know why he was dismissed but it is quite interesting that his backroom team didn't walk when he was relieved of his duties.

That's the key point I reckon.  It may not have taken much to come to the decision to sack him if they already had (unfair) doubts about his PR value to the club.

 

"The real man"! Ludicrous words. Just how do you know what that is?

 

Come on, supply some facts. You cannot of course, for that could only be YOUR opinion of him. None of us know "the real man".

I think it's fair to say we saw the real man in both respects, it's a part of his character to be short with journalists who employ tabloid media lines of approach.

 

I didn't want to see Nigel leave, but I can't really say I disagree with the decision because

1.) Still no idea wtf actually happened.

2.) It's true that he's clearly a man with strong moral impulses and like I said above I can see the logic to the idea that he put his foot in it, particularly with the rest of the back room staff looking like they're staying put and working with Claudio and the owners.

 

All in all I'm upset that we lost such a talismanic figure around the club and it may well be a long while before I fully get over it and stop feeling regret over the whole affair, but I gotta say Ranieri's presence gives cause for optimism that we can move forwards and build on last year regardless.

[fleckneymike]

 

 

 

Sure, but even if the explanation is being withheld for good reason I'm still going to sit hear and be satisfied that dismissing Pearson was the right call.

 

 

 

If that's the case then I'm absolutely convinced it was the wrong decision.

 

Looking at last season's incidents I don't believe that adding them up comes anywhere close to providing a good reason to dismiss the manager. They were all petty, but ultimately insignificant, outbursts. I would only accept a very serious clash in the summer as a justification for dismissing Pearson.

 

 

Then you will never be satisfied with any answer the club provide.

 

Imagine for a second Pearson hadn't been sacked, whay do you believe would have been question 1 at our first press conferennce?

[Bettsj2]

From his Stringer interviews, Ostrichgate, and I suppose FOAD (though that one by all accounts is debatable whether it indicates particular volatility of character), you definitely get a sense of a man who will vehemently defend his views even when it may seem wiser not to - it's one of the things that endeared him to me. Obviously I can see where the idea that he got heated up and said the wrong things is coming from, I just think the wrong examples are being held up time and time again.

That's the key point I reckon. It may not have taken much to come to the decision to sack him if they already had (unfair) doubts about his PR value to the club.

I think it's fair to say we saw the real man in both respects, it's a part of his character to be short with journalists who employ tabloid media lines of approach.

I didn't want to see Nigel leave, but I can't really say I disagree with the decision because

1.) Still no idea wtf actually happened.

2.) It's true that he's clearly a man with strong moral impulses and like I said above I can see the logic to the idea that he put his foot in it, particularly with the rest of the back room staff looking like they're staying put and working with Claudio and the owners.

All in all I'm upset that we lost such a talismanic figure around the club and it may well be a long while before I fully get over it and stop feeling regret over the whole affair, but I gotta say Ranieri's presence gives cause for optimism that we can move forwards and build on last year regardless.

You're exactly right and I suspect a fair number feel the same.

After the initial shock and anger has subsided, many are now coming to realise that maybe, just maybe, Nigel caused his own downfall which is a massive shame as the owners showed no end of support to him over his second stint but goodwill really does only go so far and its not too hard to imagine that he used all of his up.

[fleckneymike]

Well there is, Ranieri bringing in his own staff for starters but that they've not binned the coaches isn't surprising, you leave as much together as possible for the transition and for caretakers - remember when Levein was sacked and his assistant Kelly remained? I doubt that was because of Levein as a person rather than the results...

 

What on earth does the sacking of Craig Levein by Tim Davies have to do with the Pearson situation?

[inckley fox]

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.

 

I can accept that you may have failed to notice the other two sources I provided. If you really want I'll provide a lot more sources if that's how you measure the credibility of a point, but I suspect you're perfectly capable of looking that up yourself. It's not as if there's any shortage of information about human rights abuses in Thailand, or the monarchy's connection to them.

 

On the other hand I can't accept that anyone could be so dim as not to see that (i) the king of Thailand doesn't occupy a purely constitutional role and (ii) that King Power have at very least either supported, or benefited from the regime.

 

And if you refuse to accept that there's anything wrong with stringent restrictions on freedom of speech, or locking people up for exercising freedom of speech, and you maintain that lese majeste doesn't exist in Thailand and therefore the monarchy has no connection with this, then maybe you could look towards the 2009 'airport scam' allegations against King Power instead. If we have spurious reasons to doubt Pearson's ability to behave in a morally upstanding manner, then we have them for the board too.

 

But, as I keep saying, this is all totally, totally beside the point. It's as relevant to hold monarchical associations and airport scams and the Sousa affair against the board, as it is to hold ostrich-gate or FOAD-gate against Pearson.

 

And this is where you keep getting yourself into trouble. You keep insisting that based on what we know of Pearson's volatile nature (when someone yells abuse at him or trips him up on the touchline) we can easily imagine how, correspondingly, he goes about his business in the boardroom. I'm saying they're two different things, much like reported airport scams and associations with a maligned monarch shouldn't count against the board either. And the evidence points to that too. He wasn't fired for gross misconduct and nobody apart from you and a couple of others has implied that he was.

 

You're so hung up on how wonderful the Thai monarchy and the board are, that you can't see what is a very straightforward point at the end of it: We don't know why he was sacked so we can't approve of the reasons for the sacking. Prior evidence of how he acts in situation 'x' or how they act in situation 'y' doesn't tell us what happened in situation 'z'.