Webbo Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 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. Me too.I may have taken the owners side but that doesn't mean I'm not sad at what's happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank to be Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 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. By his own admission, the former Sheffield Wednesday and Middlesbrough captain can be “very moody”. He has no time for “crap questions” in and is prone to making a “flippant remark from time to time”. “There’s a bit of mischief in there,” Pearson says..."I don’t like all the aspects of what I do and am, or things I’ve done, but you’ve got to live with it.”..."I’m a human being and I’ll get things wrong."...“I think what I’ve observed about myself this season is that I’ve occasionally come out with some real pearlers, which I’d rather not have come out with,”...“I suppose there’s the mischief side in me" Pearson in this own words. Plenty there to suggest he could be difficult to work with. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry - LCFC Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 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? I've just explained to you that I would accept a serious clash in the summer as justification to sack Pearson. With that in mind I don't understand why you've typed out your first sentence. Regarding your question, I suppose you want me to mention the Thailand incident. It would've been an awkward question to deal with but it's not the sort of thing that would cause a meltdown if handled properly i.e. Pearson repeating the words "no comment" a couple of times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 What on earth does the sacking of Craig Levein by Tim Davies have to do with the Pearson situation? It was an example of when a manager has been sacked and the backroom staff kept, where the reason obviously wasn't because of the manager as a person, for the sake of saving some stability and not having the ship completely rudderless while searching. As I said in the same post. One of the many plausible reasons for Walsh and Shakespeare not being sacked before we get to the idea that Pearson must have been an arrogant **** and deserved to be sacked (with no justification for thinking so) but there'll always be a sizeable minority who will never accept that maybe the owners were in the wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank to be Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 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'. You've started to put words in my mouth now. Never have I said the board or the Thai monarchy are "wonderful", neither have I claimed that lese majeste doesn't exist or anything of the sort. What I've said is that you have no evidence at all of the owner's involvement in any of it, while we have all seen evidence of Pearson being difficult to work with. I've dealt with the airport scam thing already as well, KP is a huge business, employees try things on all the time all around the world, you can't prevent it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inckley fox Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 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. Not where the board are concerned, not as far as we know. We don't confuse how coppers act with criminals with how they'd interact in a meeting, nor how a teacher treats a naughty kid with how they'd behave at a conference. Why should we confuse how a man acts when he's tripped up on a touchline, abused by a fan or speaking with journalists with how he'd behave in the boardroom? Hopefully he'd understand the different demands of the two environments. He'd apparently managed to throughout the rest of his career. Like I say, they're two different sets of circumstances. We can look at other matters concerning King Power and cast aspersions on them if we want, but that would be equally irrelevant. We're left, after all that, with a sacking which hasn't been explained and which, in footballing terms, makes no sense. If we're to approve of what appears to be a very strange decision, then we need a reason to approve of it, rather than vague talk of a hypothetical 'wobbly' which wasn't gross misconduct, but was still a sackable offence. Until that moment, it remains a very strange decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 Oh how we laughed.... That looks cuddly - these didn't and that's my point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 We're left, after all that, with a sacking which hasn't been explained and which, in footballing terms, makes no sense. If we're to approve of what appears to be a very strange decision, then we need a reason to approve of it, rather than vague talk of a hypothetical 'wobbly' which wasn't gross misconduct, but was still a sackable offence. Until that moment, it remains a very strange decision. Well Pearson hasn't explained why he was unjustly sacked so we can assume that he agrees with the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inckley fox Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 You've started to put words in my mouth now. Never have I said the board or the Thai monarchy are "wonderful", neither have I claimed that lese majeste doesn't exist or anything of the sort. What I've said is that you have no evidence at all of the owner's involvement in any of it, while we have all seen evidence of Pearson being difficult to work with. I've dealt with the airport scam thing already as well, KP is a huge business, employees try things on all the time all around the world, you can't prevent it. Of course, it's speculation. We have good reason to believe that they support the king's regime and have benefited from it, but I'm sure they have no constitutional role! Yet people are often judged on their allegiances, and scams associated with their companies, however tenuous a link that might be with their management of a football club. In much the same way, Pearson's handling of the press, or fans, is unlikely to translate to his behaviour in a boardroom environment. Even if it did, we have no idea whether he was in the right or not, do we? So we're still left with no reason for the sacking. Everything is guesswork. And I certainly didn't quote you, or even paraphrase you, I just summarised the sentiment of your messages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donut Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 Its interesting that this supposed media blackout the players put on with Radio Leicester and Stringer in support of Nigel Pearson seemed to end pretty quickly as soon as he was gone. Not putting 2+2 together though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry - LCFC Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 That looks cuddly - these didn't and that's my point image.jpg image.jpg That headline is a lie. McCarthur said himself there was nothing malicious in it. Anyone continuing to use this incident against Pearson either doesn't understand what happened or has no intent to make an honest case against the man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuchsntf Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 Forget all the speculation, its not worth it, the fans dont win money prizes, or special honours, being nearest to "CLUBS REASONS for managers dismisal" game..!! The club through Susan Whelan has asked for trust and understanding, on the descision. I said in a previous post in another thread, its remarkable in todays world that.... #press have no idea and have only presumed and speculated. # Various press agencies and journslists seen around KP, have only made speculative in fairness silly statements, based on....zero, null, knowledge #No comment whatsover coming from Pearsons camp. # No so called spokesman from Pearsons family, with any comment. #No leakage from any inside/outside club circles #Thai owners neither from themselves or again family or Thailland circles ,a single comment. Until something comes from the Club, or owners , on Whelans request I will keep that trust and understanding. ## Ranieri will have my 100% support, until/ only if his results and performances dip below what my reasonable expections. ## Those expectations will be higher positive results has last season, Personally I will wait until end of November and see.!! ## I expect at some date before End of September, the owners to close out the issue "Pearson" so ......club can advance and any lingering doubts are put to bed. Obviously opinions will run for ......longer, BUT speculation must have its end. ### If city show stability and improvement, then they and Ranieri should have an easier ride, mixed .........with normal pressure. ### If city struggle and collapse within themselves, and dive to the bottom, then they can expect .........the worse. ### If they struggle a little, then keep their heads above water, but with improved performances, they live to fight another day. Mixed opinions just part and parcel of PL life. So lets not make up stories that bare no fact , or have opinions that warrant either positive or negative consideration because no links exsist. So trust the present set up, until or if ever they disearn it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reynard Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 Well Pearson hasn't explained why he was unjustly sacked so we can assume that he agrees with the decision. Or that he is legally bound not to say anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 Or that he is legally bound not to say anything? Like the club you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thursday_next Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 Well Pearson hasn't explained why he was unjustly sacked so we can assume that he agrees with the decision. So, all these confidentiality issues apply to the board and not to Pearson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inckley fox Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 Well Pearson hasn't explained why he was unjustly sacked so we can assume that he agrees with the decision. If that seems logical to you then go ahead! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 Well Pearson hasn't explained why he was unjustly sacked so we can assume that he agrees with the decision.Eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 That headline is a lie. McCarthur said himself there was nothing malicious in it. Anyone continuing to use this incident against Pearson either doesn't understand what happened or has no intent to make an honest case against the man. You're missing the point Harry. Those photos are like grenades waiting to go off whenever Nigel made a further indiscretion. What MacArthur did or didn't day are irrelevant. A picture says a thousand words. Without that incident, I doubt the Thailand issue would have led to his dismissal. I think he lost Top's support after that . Vichai's went the evening of the palace fixture when those photos appeared in the Far East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 So, all these confidentiality issues apply to the board and not to Pearson? Apparently if the club follow legal protocol it proves they have something to hide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 Its interesting that this supposed media blackout the players put on with Radio Leicester and Stringer in support of Nigel Pearson seemed to end pretty quickly as soon as he was gone. Not putting 2+2 together though. Or it's a new season and they drew a line under it. As Pearson did previously after similar run ins with stringer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 Eh? We're told that until the club explain why he was sacked we can't trust them, why doesn't that work both ways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reynard Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 Like the club you mean? Quite often both employees and employer are bound by legal agreements that mean that neither party is allowed to reveal anything either ever or for a certain period of time. We have no idea if or how much compensation was involved or if there is likely to be any legal representation made by Pearson in the future. We may not find out the truth for quite a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inckley fox Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 Apparently if the club follow legal protocol it proves they have something to hide. Not at all. It just means that you have no reason to approve of the sacking, but I have a sound reason for disapproving of it - i.e. he was a very good manager. The onus is on them to justify their decision, which they may well do - either by showing themselves to have had just cause or by backing it up with results on the field. To guess that they're right just 'because Nige could be a nasty man' is nothing more than guesswork - and we can all come up with guesses, as I keep saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 Quite often both employees and employer are bound by legal agreements that mean that neither party is allowed to reveal anything either ever or for a certain period of time. We have no idea if or how much compensation was involved or if there is likely to be any legal representation made by Pearson in the future. We may not find out the truth for quite a while. I know that. I was making a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thursday_next Posted 26 July 2015 Share Posted 26 July 2015 Apparently if the club follow legal protocol it proves they have something to hide. You may have to explain that a little further, because I've got idea what you're on about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.