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

[Bettsj2]

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!

Hate being pedantic but Adams and Cork weren't fired, they left if their own accord. Also Fazakerly (was that his name?) left when Sven was sacked.

Apart from that all is well.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

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.

Well, Charlie boy, I guess it doesn't matter to either the Board, or Pearson, what any of us think. We can debate until the cows come home, but it wont change anything.

 

It's just life, and we have to move on.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

 

Oh how we laughed....

Looking at that picture, Pearson isn't smiling, or laughing.   

[katieakita]

Right/Wrong he has left the building. The direction of the club will become clearer hopefully over the next few weeks, we are still despite the gloom better off squad wise than this time last year and the players will know they can compete at this level.Hopefully we also strengthen in the next few days but would rather get the right players in than rush into anything  we might have to pay over the odds or as transfer deadline looms clubs might have to sell for less, whatever this is my club. We have good times we have bad times I still will follow the foxes. .

[Buce]

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 Adam Pearson a new contract. In the long run, what would Adam 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.

This.

Top post.

[Unabomber]

Looking at that picture, Pearson isn't smiling, or laughing.   

It looks like sexual assault to me, with a lot of intent.

[smudger63]

This.

Top post.

No it`s not, it`s complete tosh!!!

[Buce]

No it`s not, it`s complete tosh!!!

Ok, you've conviced me.

[Strokes]

Ok, you've conviced me.

[MC Prussian]

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.

Into which you read that he "could... be difficult to work with". Again, pure conjecture on your behalf.

 

And it's not like "being moody" is a sole character trait of one manager only. We're all human, we can all be more or less "moody" depending on our daily form.

[Frank to be]

Into which you read that he "could... be difficult to work with". Again, pure conjecture on your behalf.

And it's not like "being moody" is a sole character trait of one manager only. We're all human, we can all be more or less "moody" depending on our daily form.

He said he was very moody, prone to making flippant remarks, mischievous and says things he later regrets. That's Pearson talking about himself. If you can't accept that those traits allow for the possibility of him being difficult to work with then your head must be in the sand.

Then add to that his catalogue of incidents and I can't see how anyone can deny that possibility.

[MC Prussian]

He said he was very moody, prone to making flippant remarks, mischievous and says things he later regrets. That's Pearson talking about himself. If you can't accept that those traits allow for the possibility of him being difficult to work with then your head must be in the sand.

Then add to that his catalogue of incidents and I can't see how anyone can deny that possibility.

Well, if he were really difficult to work with - why appoint him in the first place and then back him for so many years? Why give him all the resources and the time to build his own squad and instill his own philosophy, creating a fantastic kind of unity along the way?

 

He was a pawn in the grand scheme of things, as the owners had always wanted someone with a bigger pedigree and someone more "presentable" to the public & the media. Even a guy like you, so ferociously defending the owners decision to sack Pearson must admit that it is a very likely scenario.

 

Pearson did what they demanded of him, then was let go because he was no longer of any use. Period. That it had to come to this appears to be a rather unfortunate kind of timing and a lack of grace from the owners/the board.

[Frank to be]

Well, if he were really difficult to work with - why appoint him in the first place and then back him for so many years? Why give him all the resources and the time to build his own squad and instill his own philosophy, creating a fantastic kind of unity along the way?

He was a pawn in the grand scheme of things, as the owners had always wanted someone with a bigger pedigree and someone more "presentable" to the public & the media. Even a guy like you, so ferociously defending the owners decision to sack Pearson must admit that it is a very likely scenario.

Pearson did what they demanded of him, then was let go because he was no longer of any use. Period. That it had to come to this appears to be a rather unfortunate kind of timing and a lack of grace from the owners/the board.

I suspect they didn't have a through knowledge of his personality before they appointed him. They probably stuck by him because they're patient and tolerant, but eventually that ran out.

The rest of your post is speculation. You're entitled to speculate, but let's not pretend any of it is close to being established fact.

[shade]

I suspect they didn't have a through knowledge of his personality before they appointed him. They probably stuck by him because they're patient and tolerant, but eventually that ran out.

The rest of your post is speculation. You're entitled to speculate, but let's not pretend any of it is close to being established fact.

speculates. tells someone their post is speculation.

[Frank to be]

speculates. tells someone their post is speculation.

The difference is that I said things like "I suspect" and "they probably" because I know I'm not totally sure whereas the other poster presented his speculation as fact.

I've no issue with people speculating as long as they make it clear that's what they're doing. Presenting things as fact when you don't know it's fact is called lying, and lying about things to discredit the club you're supposed to support isn't cool.

[Strokes]

The difference is that I said things like "I suspect" and "they probably" because I know I'm not totally sure whereas the other poster presented his speculation as fact.

I've no issue with people speculating as long as they make it clear that's what they're doing. Presenting things as fact when you don't know it's fact is called lying, and lying about things to discredit the club you're supposed to support isn't cool.

If you speculate but present as fact and it's correct, is it still lying?

[Frank to be]

If you speculate but present as fact and it's correct, is it still lying?

If you don't know something is a fact but you present it as a fact then you're lying, if it subsequently turns out that your speculation was true then you were still lying at the time yes.

[Strokes]

If you don't know something is a fact but you present it as a fact then you're lying, if it subsequently turns out that your speculation was true then you were still lying at the time yes.

Nah, I'm not having that. It's not lying, it has to be something less harsh, like fibbing or misleading.

[Frank to be]

Nah, I'm not having that. It's not lying, it has to be something less harsh, like fibbing or misleading.

I think it depends, lying is to make an intentionally false statement so good honest speculation isn't a lie, but pretending something is fact when you don't know is intentionally false as it implies "I know this is a fact" when you don't so it's a lie. Maybe misleading or dishonest is a better way to describe it but either way it's not on.

[MC Prussian]

The difference is that I said things like "I suspect" and "they probably" because I know I'm not totally sure whereas the other poster presented his speculation as fact.

I've no issue with people speculating as long as they make it clear that's what they're doing. Presenting things as fact when you don't know it's fact is called lying, and lying about things to discredit the club you're supposed to support isn't cool.

In the end, it all depends on what you read into it all and how you approach the whole debate from the start.

 

If you start accusing others of "discrediting the club", then you're

a) aiming past what was really said

b) tarring all critics of the decision to sack Pearson with the same brush

c) a bit out of your mind

d) agitating on a high horse

 

We all care for this club, otherwise we wouldn't be (on) here. Just because a portion of the fanbase isn't satisfied with the sacking doesn't mean we're not looking forward to the new season (with a heightened sense of mix between slight dread and anticipation).

 

We can all start implying that the person at the other end is lying. What does this lead to? Absolutely nothing.

As long as no more facts see the light of the day, this thread will see a plethora of new life cycles.

[Frank to be]

1) He was a pawn in the grand scheme of things, as

2) the owners had always wanted someone with a bigger pedigree

3) and someone more "presentable" to the public & the media.

4) Pearson... was let go because he was no longer of any use. Period.

That it had to come to this appears to be a rather unfortunate kind of timing and a lack of grace from the owners/the board.

Four points there that you've presented as fact when they're all obviously speculation. Each one intended to discredit the club. You've made no intention at all to present this as a balanced discussion, it's a clear attack on the owners based on speculation you've dishonestly presented as fact. I mean you've even used quotation marks and the word 'period'. You're not just quietly trying to pass it off as fact, you're actually being quite forceful about it.

The final paragraph doesn't make much sense but contains another criticism of the club based on your speculation.

I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush, just the people dishonestly presenting speculation as fact and then using that to discredit the club I support.

[Donut]

How about we all stop implying anything and get behind Ranieri.

 

FFS weve got a manager with a proven track record of success, a club with good momentum and weve lost ONE player from the squad who had any impact on it who will almost certainly be replaced and probably with someone 10 years younger, and were all bickering like idiots STILL.

 

What does it achieve? nothing.

 

I cannot believe how ONE MAN could create so much controversy in the fan base.

[Harry - LCFC]

How about we all stop implying anything and get behind Ranieri.

 

FFS weve got a manager with a proven track record of success, a club with good momentum and weve lost ONE player from the squad who had any impact on it who will almost certainly be replaced and probably with someone 10 years younger, and were all bickering like idiots STILL.

 

What does it achieve? nothing.

 

I cannot believe how ONE MAN could create so much controversy in the fan base.

 

Tbf he is the manager, I hear it's quite an important position

[thursday_next]

 

a) aiming past what was really said

b) tarring all critics of the decision to sack Pearson with the same brush

c) a bit out of your mind

d) agitating on a high horse

 

.

 

or e) he could be trolling. In which case I think he's doing rather a good job.

[Donut]

Tbf he is the manager, I hear it's quite an important position

 

He WAS the manager. Youre still clinging onto the vain hope he still is in desperation.