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

[sylofox]

I agree with what you're saying. But Susan Whelan is aggrevating the situation by her statement. We're all adults who are perfectly able to form our own opinions. Not children who need telling "we only want what's best for you".

 

All the corporate suits associated with the club should just shut their King Power mouths and get on with it. When the players start speaking about how they will run through a wall for Susan Whelan, that's when i'll start listening to her.

 

We've no good reason to trust the club over this. Pearson has been sacked because of a breakdown in communication between him and the owners. Well, so what? That's life, and you just deal with it. You don't sack somebody who is perfectly good at their job because of something like this. You work around it like an adult.

 

I'm more than happy to move on - if and when the club stop patronising the fans with this sort of thing.

In march and April most on here had either given up on NP and wanted him out or given up our chances of staying up.

A few of us did not give up on either but NP has done himself no favours in his actions that we know of.

What else has he done behind closed doors.

 

And how the fvck can you say the above I can think of about 150MILLION reasons to trust our owners.

 

If you want to blame someone for this try looking at Nige and praps his sons actions not our owners.

We would not be where we are today without there money.

[Guest]

In march and April most on here had either given up on NP and wanted him out or given up our chances of staying up.

A few of us did not give up on either but NP has done himself no favours in his actions that we know of.

What else has he done behind closed doors.

And how the fvck can you say the above I can think of about 150MILLION reasons to trust our owners.

If you want to blame someone for this try looking at Nige and praps his sons actions not our owners.

We would not be where we are today without there money.

Bow down to the money folks!

[Guest MattP]

And how the fvck can you say the above I can think of about 150MILLION reasons to trust our owners.

 

I still hope most people live in a World where money doesn't = trust.

[sylofox]

I still hope most people live in a World where money doesn't = trust.

My point is more that they want us to be a success you would not put that money in to want us to fail.

[Fox Ulike]

In march and April most on here had either given up on NP and wanted him out or given up our chances of staying up.

A few of us did not give up on either but NP has done himself no favours in his actions that we know of.

What else has he done behind closed doors.

 

And how the fvck can you say the above I can think of about 150MILLION reasons to trust our owners.

 

If you want to blame someone for this try looking at Nige and praps his sons actions not our owners.

We would not be where we are today without there money.

 

None of us follow the Foxes because of the money.

 

They give us money and we promote the King Power brand. That's a symbiotic relationship.

 

However, it's starting to become difficult to distinguish Leicester City from King Power. That's a predatory relationship in which we've slowly been taken over by our sponsors.

 

Susan Whelan works for Leicester City not King Power. But hey, what's the difference?

 

 If the owners want us to trust them, then why don't they ask us themselves?

[Guest MattP]

My point is more that they want us to be a success you would not put that money in to want us to fail.

 

Tony Fernandes has put even more into QPR, would you trust him?

[Gerard]

last news

http://goo.gl/d8Xio4

 

Ban this spamming idiot please

[Wymsey]

It appears that the more cash football owners put into their respective club, the more they want to control things themselves.

 

And that's not technically right, as they need to listen to others opinions before making decisions themselves.

[C-man]

My point is more that they want us to be a success you would not put that money in to want us to fail.

Business success and sporting integrity aren't particularly good mates.

[indierich06]

In march and April most on here had either given up on NP and wanted him out or given up our chances of staying up.

A few of us did not give up on either but NP has done himself no favours in his actions that we know of.

What else has he done behind closed doors.

 

And how the fvck can you say the above I can think of about 150MILLION reasons to trust our owners.

 

If you want to blame someone for this try looking at Nige and praps his sons actions not our owners.

We would not be where we are today without there money.

 

We were a playoff side in the Championship before they turned up. Are you saying it would have been impossible to get promoted without them and their money? If anything, hiring Sven and splashing the cash proved more of a hinderance than a help - we only got promoted after Pearson returned, shipped out a load of the overpaid dross and made some astute, low-cost signings.

 

And everyone keeps banging on about them writing off that debt - they ran up most of it themselves through pretty dreadful financial management of the club! Fair play to them for cleaning up their mess, but it was their mess to clean up. It's like praising someone for paying for your window to be fixed after they've smashed it.

 

The one common denominator to Leicester City's success, before and after the owners arrived, is Nigel Pearson. Take him out of the equation and the owners' record at this club is poor at best. They've now sacked him, given conflicting reasons about why, and then told us to trust them, basically, 'because they say so'. And you can't understand why it might be hard for some to accept that?

 

But yeah, they've got money, so let's just accept everything they do without question. We should just be happy they even let us go to their club's games.

[indierich06]

My point is more that they want us to be a success you would not put that money in to want us to fail.

 

That doesn't mean that we should trust every decision they make. These are the same people who have made such amazing decisions as signing Sven, authorising insane transfer fees and wages for sub par players, signing up exisiting players at the club to outrageous contracts... the most sensible decision they made was reappointing Pearson and letting him clean up their mess. Now they've sacked him, won't/can't tell anyone the real reason and just expect us to place blind trust in them. Well I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Trust is earned, not bought and paid for.

[fleckneymike]

I agree with what you're saying. But Susan Whelan is aggrevating the situation by her statement. We're all adults who are perfectly able to form our own opinions. Not children who need telling "we only want what's best for you".

 

All the corporate suits associated with the club should just shut their King Power mouths and get on with it. When the players start speaking about how they will run through a wall for Susan Whelan, that's when i'll start listening to her.

 

We've no good reason to trust the club over this. Pearson has been sacked because of a breakdown in communication between him and the owners. Well, so what? That's life, and you just deal with it. You don't sack somebody who is perfectly good at their job because of something like this. You work around it like an adult.

 

I'm more than happy to move on - if and when the club stop patronising the fans with this sort of thing.

 

I think you're being a tad hysterical. If you think 'trust us' is patronising, then surely the lazy metaphor of 'running through brick walls' would be more aggravating as it is possibly a more hollow statement.

 

I think we've every reason to trust the club acted in what they believed were the best interests of all parties involved, this is the same board who stuck with Pearson when the majority of clubs would have bombed him out way before, the same board who heavily back every manager they employ, the same board who invested heavily off the pitch to try and create a legacy and the same board who don't interfere at all with first team affairs.

 

Pearson has gone, he couldn't work with our billionaire owners, that is his responsibility not theirs.

[fleckneymike]

We were a playoff side in the Championship before they turned up. Are you saying it would have been impossible to get promoted without them and their money? If anything, hiring Sven and splashing the cash proved more of a hinderance than a help - we only got promoted after Pearson returned, shipped out a load of the overpaid dross and made some astute, low-cost signings.

 

And everyone keeps banging on about them writing off that debt - they ran up most of it themselves through pretty dreadful financial management of the club! Fair play to them for cleaning up their mess, but it was their mess to clean up. It's like praising someone for paying for your window to be fixed after they've smashed it.

 

The one common denominator to Leicester City's success, before and after the owners arrived, is Nigel Pearson. Take him out of the equation and the owners' record at this club is poor at best. They've now sacked him, given conflicting reasons about why, and then told us to trust them, basically, 'because they say so'. And you can't understand why it might be hard for some to accept that?

 

But yeah, they've got money, so let's just accept everything they do without question. We should just be happy they even let us go to their club's games.

 

We were a playoff side thanks to Mandaric and his (aka ours) money. He was desperate to sell up because after three years of investment the money was all gone and he couldn't sustain the debts which he was piling up on the club.

 

Whilst it wouldn't been impossible, it would certainly have been improbable. If you examine the mediocrity we'd endured prior to and during Mandaric's desperate splurge during Allen's reign then you can see how vital money is to success. Pearson undoubtedly brought us great success but he did it at great expense too.

[Fox Ulike]

I think you're being a tad hysterical. If you think 'trust us' is patronising, then surely the lazy metaphor of 'running through brick walls' would be more aggravating as it is possibly a more hollow statement.

 

I think we've every reason to trust the club acted in what they believed were the best interests of all parties involved, this is the same board who stuck with Pearson when the majority of clubs would have bombed him out way before, the same board who heavily back every manager they employ, the same board who invested heavily off the pitch to try and create a legacy and the same board who don't interfere at all with first team affairs.

 

Pearson has gone, he couldn't work with our billionaire owners, that is his responsibility not theirs.

 

True. My metaphors are lazy and clichéd. I'll try and be more poetic in future.

 

We've absolutely no reason to trust the club over this because it's not the club who have made the decision. It's King Power.

 

Susan Whelan is King Power's mouth-piece. So I can't see how she can expect the fans to trust her since she's just repeating the mantra of the owners which is:

 

"We've sacked a very successful manager, but we can't tell you why. Trust us".

 

I think that's patronising. Especially since we don't really have a choice. And especially since I cannot think of any other example in the history of football where something like this has happened.

 

Imagine going home tonight and your wife says:

 

"I've had to put the cat down, but I can't tell you why. Trust me."

 

You just gonna sit there and go 'fair enough luv'.?

[Captain...]

True. My metaphors are lazy and clichéd. I'll try and be more poetic in future.

 

We've absolutely no reason to trust the club over this because it's not the club who have made the decision. It's King Power.

 

Susan Whelan is King Power's mouth-piece. So I can't see how she can expect the fans to trust her since she's just repeating the mantra of the owners which is:

 

"We've sacked a very successful manager, but we can't tell you why. Trust us".

 

I think that's patronising. Especially since we don't really have a choice. And especially since I cannot think of any other example in the history of football where something like this has happened.

 

Imagine going home tonight and your wife says:

 

"I've had to put the cat down, but I can't tell you why. Trust me."

 

You just gonna sit there and go 'fair enough luv'.?

 

FFS, they are not telling us why BECAUSE THEY CAN'T, neither is Nigel for what it's worth.

 

That is why she has asked us to trust them on the reasons behind it.

[fleckneymike]

True. My metaphors are lazy and clichéd. I'll try and be more poetic in future.

 

We've absolutely no reason to trust the club over this because it's not the club who have made the decision. It's King Power.

 

Susan Whelan is King Power's mouth-piece. So I can't see how she can expect the fans to trust her since she's just repeating the mantra of the owners which is:

 

"We've sacked a very successful manager, but we can't tell you why. Trust us".

 

I think that's patronising. Especially since we don't really have a choice. And especially since I cannot think of any other example in the history of football where something like this has happened.

 

Imagine going home tonight and your wife says:

 

"I've had to put the cat down, but I can't tell you why. Trust me."

 

You just gonna sit there and go 'fair enough luv'.?

 

I think the death of a family pet and the owner of a local business firing one of their employees is slightly different.

 

Susan Whelan doesn't want us to trust her, she asked that we trust the board.

[The Railway Man]

This is exactly why Whelan asked us to trust the club, because they can't give the full reasons why he was sacked.

 

So you either trust the club, or don't, but trusting the club, supporting the owners and the new manager and not causing arguments and discord amongst fans will help the club move forwards and on to the next stage, let's call it the Rani-era.

 

Look forwards, not backwards and judge the owners and the manager on the next season and not on last season.

 

You might be able to get a 5 year old to trust you with some silly little wordplay but grown adults are going to need something a bit more concrete.

 

The owners will certainly be judged on next season, they need an impressive one to try and regain that trust so many have lose in them.

[Captain...]

Ok, someone give me a concrete reason not to trust them.

 

Not speculation, not lies, a real reason not to trust them, one thing they have done during their period in charge of the club that gives you a reason not to trust them when they have not acted in what they believe is the best way for the club.

[The Railway Man]

Ok, someone give me a concrete reason not to trust them.

 

Not speculation, not lies, a real reason not to trust them, one thing they have done during their period in charge of the club that gives you a reason not to trust.

 

At every point they have been involved with this football club without Nigel Pearson it has been a total shambles on and off the pitch.

[Captain...]

You might be able to get a 5 year old to trust you with some silly little wordplay but grown adults are going to need something a bit more concrete.

 

The owners will certainly be judged on next season, they need an impressive one to try and regain that trust so many have lose in them.

 

Ranieri will be judged on next season, the owners decision to sack Pearson will be judged on next season, they should be judged on their whole time as owners. From appointing Sven, to sacking Sven, and all the investment and backing of managers, their relationship building with the fans, the attempts to improve the atmosphere connect with the community and increase revenue streams.

[indierich06]

We were a playoff side thanks to Mandaric and his (aka ours) money. He was desperate to sell up because after three years of investment the money was all gone and he couldn't sustain the debts which he was piling up on the club.

 

Whilst it wouldn't been impossible, it would certainly have been improbable. If you examine the mediocrity we'd endured prior to and during Mandaric's desperate splurge during Allen's reign then you can see how vital money is to success. Pearson undoubtedly brought us great success but he did it at great expense too.

 

I can't agree with that I'm afraid. How exactly was that play-off side assembled at 'great expense'? I think the most expensive player in that side was Paul Gallagher at around £1m. The rest, from what I remember, were brought in for free, on loan, or for extremely low fees. Plus we probably recouped more in fees from players we sold during that time - Mattock, Stearman, Gradel to name a few - than we spent on players. I can't even really see how our Championship-winning side was assembled at great expense either, Pearson perhaps spent more than others, but I don't think that level of investment required us to have billionaire owners bankrolling us.

 

If anything, both Mandaric and the Raksriaksorn's spending sprees proved that money absolutely isn't vital to success - good management and astute activity in the transfer market are. Both times we've splurged - relatively speaking - in recent times, we've fallen short of expectations and have recovered through making cutbacks, through good management of the exisiting assets and through the sensible acquisition of replacements.

 

I just can't see how money has brought us the success we've seen in recent years, in my opinion, it's been wholly down to the management of the club during that time, proven by the fact that most of our success has come when we've spent the least.

[Captain...]

At every point they have been involved with this football club without Nigel Pearson it has been a total shambles on and off the pitch.

 

One concrete reason?

[Frank to be]

We were a playoff side in the Championship before they turned up. Are you saying it would have been impossible to get promoted without them and their money? If anything, hiring Sven and splashing the cash proved more of a hinderance than a help - we only got promoted after Pearson returned, shipped out a load of the overpaid dross and made some astute, low-cost signings.

And everyone keeps banging on about them writing off that debt - they ran up most of it themselves through pretty dreadful financial management of the club! Fair play to them for cleaning up their mess, but it was their mess to clean up. It's like praising someone for paying for your window to be fixed after they've smashed it.

The one common denominator to Leicester City's success, before and after the owners arrived, is Nigel Pearson. Take him out of the equation and the owners' record at this club is poor at best. They've now sacked him, given conflicting reasons about why, and then told us to trust them, basically, 'because they say so'. And you can't understand why it might be hard for some to accept that?

But yeah, they've got money, so let's just accept everything they do without question. We should just be happy they even let us go to their club's games.

So it was the owners fault when things went wrong under sven but nothing to do with them went things went OK under Pearson?

[inckley fox]

I can't agree with that I'm afraid. How exactly was that play-off side assembled at 'great expense'? I think the most expensive player in that side was Paul Gallagher at around £1m. The rest, from what I remember, were brought in for free, on loan, or for extremely low fees. Plus we probably recouped more in fees from players we sold during that time - Mattock, Stearman, Gradel to name a few - than we spent on players. I can't even really see how our Championship-winning side was assembled at great expense either, Pearson perhaps spent more than others, but I don't think that level of investment required us to have billionaire owners bankrolling us.

 

If anything, both Mandaric and the Raksriaksorn's spending sprees proved that money absolutely isn't vital to success - good management and astute activity in the transfer market are. Both times we've splurged - relatively speaking - in recent times, we've fallen short of expectations and have recovered through making cutbacks, through good management of the exisiting assets and through the sensible acquisition of replacements.

 

I just can't see how money has brought us the success we've seen in recent years, in my opinion, it's been wholly down to the management of the club during that time, proven by the fact that most of our success has come when we've spent the least.

 

I think I'm right in saying Pearson made a profit on his transfer dealings under Mandaric. Considering, therefore, the investment in the side had been the investment which got us relegated to the third tier for the first time ever, whereas the cost-cutting under Pearson won us a promotion and took us up to the play-offs, I think it's hard to give Mandaric the credit.

[inckley fox]

So it was the owners fault when things went wrong under sven but nothing to do with them went things went OK under Pearson?

 

I don't think he's said that, has he?

 

The owners made an error in appointing Sven and after that our spending spiralled out of control, for which they have to take their share of responsibility. Ultimately they paid the bills, though Pearson had to cut his cloth accordingly in terms of his subsequent signings.

 

But they deserve credit for re-appointing Pearson then sticking with him until he'd taken us up to 14th in the PL, and he benefited from a small number of Sven's signings - specifically Schmeichel, Konchesky, Nugent.

 

And Pearson was adequately supported too, which is also to their credit. If we take reported fees for the 'undisclosed' transfers (Drinkwater £1m, Knockaert £2m, Hammond £500K, Mills out £2m, Beckford out £1.5m) his outlay was around £4-5m over 2.5 years in the second tier.

 

Yet when you compare that to the outlay under Sven - £8m in one year - it's clear that you can't necessarily equate high spending with effective club management. Similar things could be said of Mandaric's first full year in charge (£4m laid out under Allen et. al, followed by relegation) if you compare it with his second and third (profit of around £500K under Pearson, followed by promotion and a play-off finish).

 

So he says that money isn't vital to success - and Pearson's first reign would seem to support that. His second spell, on the other hand, would suggest that it helps, but it isn't the 'key ingredient'. So, as thankful as we are for their spending - and as much good as it's done in the right hands (in other words, Pearson's hands) - their single most important contribution to the club to date has been appointing and then sticking with Pearson. And yes, of course they deserve credit for that.