fleckneymike Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 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. In 2007/8 we lost £14.1 million In our season down amongst the dead men in 08/09 we lost £6.2 million, but as quoted in the Mercury at the time "The club made savings of more than £4m, mostly by reducing "staff costs" by £3.3m to £11.2m. But it did not push for further savings from the players' budget in that time because it wanted to bolster the quality of the team for the bid to return to the Championship – a strategy which paid off." By comparison Scunthorpe United who were relegated to division 1 with us lost just £1m during our promotion season. That £5m is quite a head start on your competition (if you ignore a near £12m player wage bill). If you consider that the last time we'd lost £6m in a season was nearly a decade before in 98/99 then I don't think we can quibble about considerable expense. That wage bill would have only risen as we added players to the squad. Pearson is excellent but he is also expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indierich06 Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 So it was the owners fault when things went wrong under sven but nothing to do with them went things went OK under Pearson? Please point out to me where I've said that? Or are you just being a total hypocrite and misinterpreting my post and making wild suppositions - something you've been criticising people for in this very thread? I've never said that they shouldn't take any plaudits for re-appointing and sticking with Pearson, they absolutely should. But equally, they should take criticism for their poor record outside of Pearson's tenure - particularly the tenure of Eriksson and the huge amount of debt run up during that time. I've also said they deserve respect - I wouldn't go as far as praise - for recognising that the debt was run up due to poor financial management of the club, and subsequently clearing it. The bottom line is that when decisions are made about how this club is run, the buck stops with them - good or bad. They've sacked the most successful manager we've had since Martin O'Neill, given conflicting reasons as to why at best and empty platitudes at worst, and then demand that we 'trust them' despite the fact that without Nigel Pearson as the club's manager, their tenure as owners has been underwhelming to say the least. I want them to succeed, I want this appointment to be a success and for Leicester City to do well as a club. Does this mean I have to place blind trust in owners that I don't particularly deem to have earned it? No. I'm happy to go on record now and say if this appointment is a success then I will be the first to praise and congratulate our owners - and I'll be more trusting of them in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjslcfc Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 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 anyone's saying that whatsoever. What they are saying is take Nigel Pearson out of the Thais' reign at the club and what do we have? A big bloody mess, that's what we have. They went behind Pearson's back and hired Sousa (who is actually a decent manager but was completely the wrong person for this club.) They then hired Sven, allowed him to spend ridiculous sums on mediocre players and ran up over £100m in debt. They then didn't know who to turn to after sacking him so, upon asking people within the club who they should hire, came back to Nige to sort out their mess. Undoubtedly, they did decide to cut the cloth (eventually) but the only reason performance actually improved while doing that was down to Pearson. That doesn't take away from how much they have invested in the facilities, training ground, medical science (I'd guess probably more to do with Pearson) etc... and I do think they are good owners. However, asking fans to simply trust you when history indicates your manager choices and decisions have been a bit ropey (Pearson aside but that was more driven by the safety of people knowing what he was already like), is hardly going to wash so easily with the fanbase. They've done plenty of good things here. Nevertheless, they are asking fans to trust them on an issue where they have failed so miserably more than once in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 I don't think anyone's saying that whatsoever. What they are saying is take Nigel Pearson out of the Thais' reign at the club and what do we have? A big bloody mess, that's what we have. They went behind Pearson's back and hired Sousa (who is actually a decent manager but was completely the wrong person for this club.) They then hired Sven, allowed him to spend ridiculous sums on mediocre players and ran up over £100m in debt. They then didn't know who to turn to after sacking him so, upon asking people within the club who they should hire, came back to Nige to sort out their mess. Undoubtedly, they did decide to cut the cloth (eventually) but the only reason performance actually improved while doing that was down to Pearson. That doesn't take away from how much they have invested in the facilities, training ground, medical science (I'd guess probably more to do with Pearson) etc... and I do think they are good owners. However, asking fans to simply trust you when history indicates your manager choices and decisions have been a bit ropey (Pearson aside but that was more driven by the safety of people knowing what he was already like), is hardly going to wash so easily with the fanbase. They've done plenty of good things here. Nevertheless, they are asking fans to trust them on an issue where they have failed so miserably more than once in the past. More lies! They did not go behind Pearson's back, that was Mandaric, they did not force Pearson out, he quit because of his relationship with Mandaric and Hoos! They did not appoint Sousa, Mandaric did. It was even Mandaric that sacked Sousa. Leicester chairman Milan Mandaric had backed Sousa before Tuesday night's defeat saying he would give the manager "a chance to turn things around". He was still in charge and advised the appointment of Sven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjslcfc Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 More lies! They did not go behind Pearson's back, that was Mandaric, they did not force Pearson out, he quit because of his relationship with Mandaric and Hoos! They did not appoint Sousa, Mandaric did. It was even Mandaric that sacked Sousa. He was still in charge and advised the appointment of Sven. More lies! They did not go behind Pearson's back, that was Mandaric, they did not force Pearson out, he quit because of his relationship with Mandaric and Hoos! They did not appoint Sousa, Mandaric did. It was even Mandaric that sacked Sousa. He was still in charge and advised the appointment of Sven. They bought the club in August 2010. How does this not make them at least partly responsible for events thereafter? Edit: Obviously Sousa wasn't their appointment, I got that bit mixed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Railway Man Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 He was still in charge and advised the appointment of Sven. Yes I'm sure the Thais had nothing to do with the appointment of Sven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_star Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 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. They've made that back anyway, of course they didn't want to throw it away, but other than the decision to appoint NP after MoN turned them down they may well have burned all that money apart from some of it was accruing physical assets like the stadium etc My point is more that they want us to be a success you would not put that money in to want us to fail. Of course they want us to be a success - but their decisions barring one indicates they may have no clue how 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. Yup, that's the way many see it 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. You know this how? For all we know they got scent of one of Hiddink's farts and thought they'd Sven 2.0 all over again. Likewise perhaps the relationship did actually breakdown, but that appears to have been contradicted, so who actually knows 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. , Pearson's net-spending (prior to PL and the £200m minimum income he achieved through promotion and then survival) is a bit less than £5m over something like 5 years here, and doing all of that with cutting the cloth to sustainable levels with twice building a squad on massively reduced wages to what he inherited 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. I do believe that they believe they are acting in the club's best interests 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. Their involvement from leaning on Manderic to appointing Sven, to their spunking of unsustainable millions up the wall, to failing to land targets under Robinson, basically pretty much everything of theirs which is a success down to their appointment of Pearson, the rest of their decisions, while likely with the best intentions aren't really something I can blindly trust them on It seems just about every single other decision has taken us backwards of where we were before their arrival & in many ways risked the future of the club again. It remains to be seen whether sacking Pearson & appointing 3rd/4th choice Ranieri was a poor/good/great one, but with such a poor record of decision making, I don't know how anyone can blindly trust them. I'm not saying don't trust them either, but a withholding of trust until their actions have been proved or disproved trustful is where I am Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 Yes I'm sure the Thais had nothing to do with the appointment of Sven. You are agreeing with my point you plum. I didn't say they didn't have anything to do with it, at that point they owned the club but Mandaric was still chairman and in charge and as I said in the post that you have quoted, he advised on the Sven appointment. He was also the one that sacked Sousa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filbertway Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 Is this still going on? haha. How many times to both sides want to say "Yeah I see what you mean, but let me repeat my argument again in a slightly different way" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indierich06 Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 I'm not saying don't trust them either, but a withholding of trust until their actions have been proved or disproved trustful is where I am Exactly my viewpoint too. But for some reason this appears to be unacceptable to many in this thread. Personally, I'm of the opinion that if someone has to tell you trust them, they clearly haven't given you any reason to trust them inherently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 Exactly my viewpoint too. But for some reason this appears to be unacceptable to many in this thread. Personally, I'm of the opinion that if someone has to tell you trust them, they clearly haven't given you any reason to trust them inherently. That viewpoint is fine, it is the constant lying and trying to undermine the owners that has pissed me off. Then saying things like the bold, you are still failing to get that they can't give you the reason, they have no choice, they have to ask that you to trust them that it was the right decision for the club, or just say nothing. You can't criticise them for asking you to trust them, when they can't tell you the truth behind it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleckneymike Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 , Pearson's net-spending (prior to PL and the £200m minimum income he achieved through promotion and then survival) is a bit less than £5m over something like 5 years here, and doing all of that with cutting the cloth to sustainable levels with twice building a squad on massively reduced wages to what he inherited Players dont play for buttons. His net spend may well be £5m, but his wage bill throughout was obscene. He may noy have signed Kasper, Konchesky or Nugent but he sure as heck benefitted from their presence. When we gained promotion we were £113m in debt, our wage bill for 2012/13 stood at 26.1 million (or 133% of our turnover). I think any reasonable person would view that as a considerable sum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indierich06 Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 That viewpoint is fine, it is the constant lying and trying to undermine the owners that has pissed me off. Then saying things like the bold, you are still failing to get that they can't give you the reason, they have no choice, they have to ask that you to trust them that it was the right decision for the club, or just say nothing. You can't criticise them for asking you to trust them, when they can't tell you the truth behind it all. Then they should say nothing. Trust is earned, not demanded - I'm perfectly at liberty to criticise them for telling me to trust them, if they can't give me a reason to trust them. All I can go on is the data I have available, which I've outlined at length above, and I've therefore decided to reserve my trust until such a time as the Ranieri appointment proves to be a success or a failure. What's wrong with that? I've not lied, or said anything to undermine the owners. I've praised them for what I perceive to be their successes and criticised them for what I perceive to be their failings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_star Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 Players dont play for buttons. His net spend may well be £5m, but his wage bill throughout was obscene. He may noy have signed Kasper, Konchesky or Nugent but he sure as heck benefitted from their presence. When we gained promotion we were £113m in debt, our wage bill for 2012/13 stood at 26.1 million (or 133% of our turnover). I think any reasonable person would view that as a considerable sum. Of course it was, but Pearson's time was all about reducing the outgoing, not adding to the already considerable outgoings. He did more, with less. Far, far less. The players he signed were on considerably less than the ones he replaced... and there was a hell of a lot of creative accounting going to bring sums forward, paying off, writedowns etc to make some figures look worse than they were too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchandro Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 We're told that until the club explain why he was sacked we can't trust them, why doesn't that work both ways? Because the owners were the ones who made the decision to sack Pearson, not Pearson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 Then they should say nothing. Trust is earned, not demanded - I'm perfectly at liberty to criticise them for telling me to trust them, if they can't give me a reason to trust them. All I can go on is the data I have available, which I've outlined at length above, and I've therefore decided to reserve my trust until such a time as the Ranieri appointment proves to be a success or a failure. What's wrong with that? I've not lied, or said anything to undermine the owners. I've praised them for what I perceive to be their successes and criticised them for what I perceive to be their failings. So they should say: "We've sacked Pearson." Nothing more, then they would get more criticism for not saying anything. I don't see how they can be criticised for asking us to trust them. You can say you don't trust them, but not because they said "trust me". They've made a difficult decision, that we should know the full reason behind, but they are legally bound to not tell us what it is. One question to ask yourself, is why there is a non disclosure clause in the settlement, what could be in there that the owners want to hide? Or was it insisted on by Nigel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchandro Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 Also I was called an 'ass ****'? That's a new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 Of course it was, but Pearson's time was all about reducing the outgoing, not adding to the already considerable outgoings. He did more, with less. Far, far less. The players he signed were on considerably less than the ones he replaced... and there was a hell of a lot of creative accounting going to bring sums forward, paying off, writedowns etc to make some figures look worse than they were too It was about getting rid of Sven's costly mistakes (or the costly mistakes of Sven's time in charge if you prefer) they didn't block any targets, as far as I know, they didn't force Nigel to sell anyone he didn't want. They also backed him financially to get the targets he wanted, within some budget constraints, but splashing out 1 million on a non league player shows they trusted Nigel and backed him. Nigel did a great job, and him and Walsh and the rest should be credited for an excellent record in the transfer market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleckneymike Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 Of course it was, but Pearson's time was all about reducing the outgoing, not adding to the already considerable outgoings. He did more, with less. Far, far less. The players he signed were on considerably less than the ones he replaced... and there was a hell of a lot of creative accounting going to bring sums forward, paying off, writedowns etc to make some figures look worse than they were too So just after FFP arrived, when clubs were aware that any breach could be met with a hefty fine we weirdly chose to make our losses bigger? Our wage bill actually increased by nearly £10m in 13/14 compared to 12/13, granted our 'income' increased by £12m too but I'd say that means he did more with more rather than more with less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Ulike Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 So they should say: "We've sacked Pearson." Nothing more, then they would get more criticism for not saying anything. I don't see how they can be criticised for asking us to trust them. You can say you don't trust them, but not because they said "trust me". They've made a difficult decision, that we should know the full reason behind, but they are legally bound to not tell us what it is. One question to ask yourself, is why there is a non disclosure clause in the settlement, what could be in there that the owners want to hide? Or was it insisted on by Nigel? If there’s a non-disclosure clause then this isn’t a sacking, it’s a paying up of Pearson’s contract. So Pearson actually hasn’t been sacked, but rather paid off… This makes a lot more sense, and explains the Thais inability to explain their actions. If Pearson has been sacked for breach of contract, or gross misconduct, then the club would be under no legal obligation to keep silent. They would have to be on pretty solid ground if it were either of these two reasons, and so it would be quite simple for them to reveal the reason for the sacking, even if they didn’t want to go into detail. Cardiff sacked Malky McKay for allegedly sending racist texts. There was no reason to keep silent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indierich06 Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 So they should say: "We've sacked Pearson." Nothing more, then they would get more criticism for not saying anything. I don't see how they can be criticised for asking us to trust them. You can say you don't trust them, but not because they said "trust me". They've made a difficult decision, that we should know the full reason behind, but they are legally bound to not tell us what it is. One question to ask yourself, is why there is a non disclosure clause in the settlement, what could be in there that the owners want to hide? Or was it insisted on by Nigel? I've never said that though? I've outlined the reasons for my mistrust in several posts above, in quite exhaustive detail. I merely remarked that telling someone to trust you generally doesn't work, and generally means that there isn't any reason for trust - but we're getting into semantics now. I will trust the owners when they prove, via results and progress on and off the field, that they are worthy of my trust, and that their success at this club hasn't just been down to the efforts of Nigel Pearson - who has been the common denominator in all success enjoyed by this club over the last ten years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 If there’s a non-disclosure clause then this isn’t a sacking, it’s a paying up of Pearson’s contract. So Pearson actually hasn’t been sacked, but rather paid off… This makes a lot more sense, and explains the Thais inability to explain their actions. If Pearson has been sacked for breach of contract, or gross misconduct, then the club would be under no legal obligation to keep silent. They would have to be on pretty solid ground if it were either of these two reasons, and so it would be quite simple for them to reveal the reason for the sacking, even if they didn’t want to go into detail. Cardiff sacked Malky McKay for allegedly sending racist texts. There was no reason to keep silent. Maybe it isn't all that solid grounds for sacking, hence why he was bought out his contract. If as rumoured Nigel kicked off over the treatment of his son, and they just thought we can't be dealing with another season of this man, it probably wouldn't class as gross misconduct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indierich06 Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 Maybe it isn't all that solid grounds for sacking, hence why he was bought out his contract. If as rumoured Nigel kicked off over the treatment of his son, and they just thought we can't be dealing with another season of this man, it probably wouldn't class as gross misconduct. If so, it's a ludicrous reason to sack the most successful manager of the last ten years. Some of the best managers in the game were notoriously difficult to work with - look at Brian Clough. If the chairmen had the best interests of the club at heart then surely they should put their personal feelings aside - managers do it to get the best out of players all the time, why shouldn't owners do it with managers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 If so, it's a ludicrous reason to sack the most successful manager of the last ten years. Some of the best managers in the game were notoriously difficult to work with - look at Brian Clough. If the chairmen had the best interests of the club at heart then surely they should put their personal feelings aside - managers do it to get the best out of players all the time, why shouldn't owners do it with managers? What about when Nigel walked out on us when he couldn't work with Mandaric and Hoos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Ulike Posted 27 July 2015 Share Posted 27 July 2015 Maybe it isn't all that solid grounds for sacking, hence why he was bought out his contract. If as rumoured Nigel kicked off over the treatment of his son, and they just thought we can't be dealing with another season of this man, it probably wouldn't class as gross misconduct. That all sounds quite likely. But as indierich above says, it seems to be a huge risk to take just so that Top and his Dad get an easier life. Given the total difference of personalities and PR abilities of Pearson and Ranieri, it seems that the Thais were always more interested in giving Pearson the shove in favour of a 'big name' Manager with better PR skills. It's what they wanted from Sven, and they have gone for the same approach with Ranieri. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.