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

[reynard]

I know that. I was making a point.

Fair enough

[Babylon]

We're told that until the club explain why he was sacked we can't trust them, why doesn't that work both ways?

Yeah I see your point now you explained it, that post in isolation just looked bonkers.

[fleckneymike]

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.

 

You misunderstand. What you deem a serious clash and what the board deem a serious clash are clearly quite different, that is why I fear you'd never be satisfied.

 

I'm not concerned about Pearson reacting badly to a question about the Thai incident but more that the incident will be the only question in any press conference until the press got the answer they wanted.

[Donut]

Is the line of a breakdown in working relationship not sufficient for people that we can just draw a line under it and get on with it?

 

Or do people want to judge whether the boards idea of a breakdown in relationship isnt severe enough for their liking?

[inckley fox]

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.

 

I understand your point, you know, but there was once a picture of Blair standing next to a swastika and yet you wouldn't seriously hold any Nazi Party affiliations against him. I saw a picture which made it look like Cameron was sucking off William Hague, but nobody thinks he's gay. At some point people have to be able to make judgements based on what actually happened, rather than how it looks on the back page of the Mirror or The Sun, or the equivalent in Thailand.

[katieakita]

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.

 

Not sure why so many cannot accept this.

[Donut]

Or it's a new season and they drew a line under it. As Pearson did previously after similar run ins with stringer.

 

You think Pearson would have drawn a line under it with Stringer? i doubt it.

[inckley fox]

Is the line of a breakdown in working relationship not sufficient for people that we can just draw a line under it and get on with it?

 

Or do people want to judge whether the boards idea of a breakdown in relationship isnt severe enough for their liking?

 

I know exactly what you're saying. What I'd say in response is that we can't make the judgement, in their favour or against, so what we're left with is a very strange sacking. There may be a good reason for it, but we can't use that to defend their decision. On the other hand we consider the decision to be an unfortunate one from a footballing perspective.

 

It's really a case of whether you trust in them more than you would in Pearson. Or, perhaps, whether your default setting is to question a decision until it's justified; or accept a decision until a good reason is given for it being wrong.

 

The easy way out is for this decision to work out well. I'm pretty sure we'd both agree that this was the priority.

[Frank to be]

I understand your point, you know, but there was once a picture of Blair standing next to a swastika and yet you wouldn't seriously hold any Nazi Party affiliations against him. I saw a picture which made it look like Cameron was sucking off William Hague, but nobody thinks he's gay. At some point people have to be able to make judgements based on what actually happened, rather than how it looks on the back page of the Mirror or The Sun, or the equivalent in Thailand.

Shame you haven't applied that logic when implying the owners are immoral and corrupt based on nothing more than a slight link to the Thai royals.

[Harry - LCFC]

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.

 

What you've just said there is that the KP brand was prioritised over the football, therefore Pearson had to go. If that's a reason to sack a manager (personally I doubt it was) I have less reason to respect the decision not more.

 

 

You misunderstand. What you deem a serious clash and what the board deem a serious clash are clearly quite different, that is why I fear you'd never be satisfied.

 

I'm not concerned about Pearson reacting badly to a question about the Thai incident but more that the incident will be the only question in any press conference until the press got the answer they wanted.

 

That may well be true. Since I'm such an intelligent chap  I know a good thing when I see it, as such I'd make every effort to repair my relationship with Pearson before dismissing him. If that wasn't possible then I'd get rid due to lack of an alternative.

[Webbo]

What you've just said there is that the KP brand was prioritised over the football, therefore Pearson had to go. If that's a reason to sack a manager (personally I doubt it was) I have less reason to respect the decision not more.

 

 

 

What about the Leicester City brand?

 

Not that I think this is anything to do with PR.

[st albans fox]

I understand your point, you know, but there was once a picture of Blair standing next to a swastika and yet you wouldn't seriously hold any Nazi Party affiliations against him. I saw a picture which made it look like Cameron was sucking off William Hague, but nobody thinks he's gay. At some point people have to be able to make judgements based on what actually happened, rather than how it looks on the back page of the Mirror or The Sun, or the equivalent in Thailand.

The majority of people know that Blair didn't stand next to the swastika deliberately or that Cameron would have better taste than that - however, how many people out there think that Pearson isn't unhinged enough to have done that deliberately ??? And I'm not including LCFC supporters in that question.

Vichai is clearly sensitive to the manager of his current 'prime asset' being photographed in such a way.

Not saying it's right or wrong - just trying to apply some perspective .........

[fleckneymike]

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...

 

I seem to recall that when Levein was sacked his backroom team left with him (Houston and Black), Rob Kelly was appointed following Levein's arrival to provide knowledge of the English league

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2004/nov/06/newsstory.sport8

[fleckneymike]

What you've just said there is that the KP brand was prioritised over the football, therefore Pearson had to go. If that's a reason to sack a manager (personally I doubt it was) I have less reason to respect the decision not more.

 

 

 

That may well be true. Since I'm such an intelligent chap  I know a good thing when I see it, as such I'd make every effort to repair my relationship with Pearson before dismissing him. If that wasn't possible then I'd get rid due to lack of an alternative.

 

As you're such an intelligent chap you'd also realise that it is the manager's responsibility to repair any damage caused by his actions and his players actions rather than the other way round.

[MC Prussian]

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.

Eh? The main group that worked with or under Pearson was his staff and the players - and the latter had nothing but praise for the man. Equal words were coming from respectable and thorough journalists who took their time to get more insight from Pearson - without being ostriches in the process.

 

So, what is the "evidence" you're talking about? And how does it reflect upon Pearson as being "difficult to work with"?

[Harry - LCFC]

What about the Leicester City brand?

 

Not that I think this is anything to do with PR.

 

We didn't struggle attracting players early on in the window so it didn't appear to harm us much there (while the disruption of changing managers perhaps has done). Dunno if sales were affected so can't comment on that area.

 

If it kept happening it might be something worth considering long term but only if the football was being impacted upon.

 

 

As you're such an intelligent chap you'd also realise that it is the manager's responsibility to repair any damage caused by his actions and his players actions rather than the other way round.

 

Bit of both I'd say. In any case, I imagine Pearson would've calmed down as he always did after he'd lost his temper. He even apologised once. On an issue as big as his job I find it hard to imagine he wouldn't have repeated the trick this time.

[inckley fox]

Shame you haven't applied that logic when implying the owners are immoral and corrupt based on nothing more than a slight link to the Thai royals.

 

Once again, that's not what I've said. Try arguing with what I actually do say, rather than what you wish I'd said.

 

I've pointed out how easy it is to use previous, unrelated events to form a very questionable picture of how somebody would act in their role at LCFC. This is the case with Pearson - and you've devoted a lot of time to drawing all sorts of far-fetched conclusions about him, without any knowledge of his conduct in the matter - and with the board.

 

The fact that the Thais almost certainly aren't corrupt (at least no more so than any other billionaire or football club chairman), and aren't totally incompetent in their capacity at the club, is proof of how silly it is to relate one thing - like an airport scam, an association with a heavily-criticised individual or a couple of touchline incidents after you've been whacked on your dodgy knee or called a 't**t' - with a totally different set of circumstances.

 

So, for the last time, I haven't 'fabricated' any evidence. I've pointed out real associations, given real links, provided real quotes. Nor have I ever implied that 'the owners are immoral and corrupt'. I've pointed out that you can use all sorts of things to question Pearson's conduct if you like, but I can also find plenty of reasons to question the owners if we're going to get into the business of drawing logical but unsubstantiated connections. The vast bulk of which would be equally irrelevant on either side of the argument.

 

Is that such a complex point to grasp? Or does it just hurt to accept that it's quite evidently not a wild opinion, nor even an opinion, but just demonstrably right?

[Webbo]

We didn't struggle attracting players early on in the window so it didn't appear to harm us much there (while the disruption of changing managers perhaps has done). Dunno if sales were affected so can't comment on that area.

 

If it kept happening it might be something worth considering long term but only if the football was being impacted upon.

 

 

 

It's not just about  attracting players. It's about attracting new fans and sponsors.

[inckley fox]

I seem to recall that when Levein was sacked his backroom team left with him (Houston and Black), Rob Kelly was appointed following Levein's arrival to provide knowledge of the English league

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2004/nov/06/newsstory.sport8

 

Normally the other staff don't resign without another job to go to. Roberts was fired after Lee left, Gregory and Evans left for Villa after Little, Colin Lee and Mick Huck-or-whatever joined McGhee at Wolves, same with O'Neill's staff at Celtic, Butler was fired after Taylor, Cork was fired after Adams, Houston was sacked after Levein, then Allen's and Holloway's staff were fired. Pearson's left with him first time round, Sousa's and Sven's were fired. I could have missed one, but I think Lee, Adams and Kelly are the only assistants to carry on into the next regime in the past 25 years, while Burrows was offered a role and chose to resign. He's the only one to leave of his own accord, I think, without a job to go to.

 

Somebody may well be able to correct me here!

[fleckneymike]

Normally the other staff don't resign without another job to go to. Roberts was fired after Lee left, Gregory and Evans left for Villa after Little, Colin Lee and Mick Huck-or-whatever joined McGhee at Wolves, same with O'Neill's staff at Celtic, Butler was fired after Taylor, Cork was fired after Adams, Houston was sacked after Levein, then Allen's and Holloway's staff were fired. Pearson's left with him first time round, Sousa's and Sven's were fired. I could have missed one, but I think Lee, Adams and Kelly are the only assistants to carry on into the next regime in the past 25 years, while Burrows was offered a role and chose to resign. He's the only one to leave of his own accord, I think, without a job to go to.

 

Somebody may well be able to correct me here!

 

I was always under the impression that Kelly was more of the board's appointment than Levein. Levein, Houston and Black (I think) were the set up at Hearts

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2004/oct/29/newsstory.leicestercity1

[inckley fox]

What about the Leicester City brand?

 

Not that I think this is anything to do with PR.

 

No, but it's a fair point. They could be protecting Leicester City as a brand, but obviously that brand depends to an even greater extent on our footballing success. They may have made a decision that, so long as we avoid relegation next season - and it was a concern for a long time under Pearson, it would be better for the club brand to have Ranieri in charge than Pearson. It's another of those things which will be a point worth debating, on the condition that we enjoy a respectable season under Ranieri.

 

It also fits in with St Albans Fox's argument. I fully see where people are coming from on this, I just think it would be a bit of a 'sink or swim' move when we were already doing a decent job of swimming!

I was always under the impression that Kelly was more of the board's appointment than Levein. Levein, Houston and Black (I think) were the set up at Hearts

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2004/oct/29/newsstory.leicestercity1

 

Yep, think you're right there.

[Harry - LCFC]

It's not just about  attracting players. It's about attracting new fans and sponsors.

 

Those are both important but I'd have thought the quality of football would outweigh the manager's misdemeanours when it comes to bringing them in. We have a full stadium atm and a permanent(?) shirt sponsor while these owners are here. I'm open to hearing more detail on these issues but they don't strike me as obvious worries.

[Frank to be]

Eh? The main group that worked with or under Pearson was his staff and the players - and the latter had nothing but praise for the man. Equal words were coming from respectable and thorough journalists who took their time to get more insight from Pearson - without being ostriches in the process.

So, what is the "evidence" you're talking about? And how does it reflect upon Pearson as being "difficult to work with"?

If video recorded observations of his actual behaviour aren't enough then read his own comments about himself that I posted a few posts back in this thread.

[Matt]

You think Pearson would have drawn a line under it with Stringer? i doubt it.

 

You mean like when he stopped talking to Stringer before he went to Hull then drew a line under it and spoke to Stringer again when he came back to Leicester?

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

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...

There are also many people, who will never accept that maybe Pearson, was wrong.