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

[Captain...]

I didn't say they owe us an explanation did I?

I'm saying it's not down to Pearson to tell us why he was sacked, because he didn't make the decision.

The owners don't have to tell us either (and I don't expect them to) but they have to then accept that they won't be trusted. Why would you trust someone who won't tell you the whole truth?

It is not that they won't they can't.

The "trust me" comment along with all the speculation is their way of saying something happened, something we can't tell you for legal reasons, but if we could tell you, you would support our reason for doing so.

If they had just wanted to sack him and bring in a better manager they wouldn't have said that, they wouldn't have needed to.

Allardyce, Atkins, Pulis, Houghton were all let go in the last few years on the back of successes, even Ranieri at Chelsea and Monaco. In all cases it was clear that it was because they wanted a better manager to come in to take them forwards, usually already lined up to take over.

This really doesn't appear to be the case, the timing, the lack of a plan afterwards, points to something happening that gave them no choice, something that they cannot disclose for legal reasons.

Until it comes out, or we hear any sort of statement from Nigel, who has remained incredibly quiet, we have 2 choices trust them or try to undermine them.

[Captain...]

Well yes that's another big thing, we're comparing the costs of a record breaking, promotion winning season with one where we were finishing midtable or scraping into the play offs. The extras paid out for win bonuses, goals scored and the like won't be small for such an exceptional season.

Also, if I remember correctly, there are some creative ways of accounting for large costs, for players they tend to spread the cost of the transfer and associated fees over the length of the contract. So Mills' 5Million for 3 years will appear as 1.66m in each year. Someone with a financial background explained it much better in one of the FFP threads. If so then Sven's spending was still being accounted for in our title season not just the residual wages of the likes of Gallagher and Danns.

[fleckneymike]

It would have been interesting to see the wage bill for the season after if we hadn't gone up. We were still paying huge sums to the likes of Gallagher, St Ledger and Danns. I would also wager we were still paying some wages out for the likes of Mills and Beckford who signed long contracts that would have run for until last summer or this summer. I doubt we managed to shift all their wages along with them.

 

My gut feeling is that whilst still paying out the same sums yearly, the squad he was using was actually performing much better and costing less. The club themselves have commented on the cutting of costs he did.

 

Is there any evidence at all for us paying Danns' wages, or Mills, or Beckford?

 

The squad undoubtedly performed much, much better but they didn't cost less.

[Babylon]

Is there any evidence at all for us paying Danns' wages, or Mills, or Beckford?

Danns was still a Leicester player, and as I said the others are an educated guess. Based on the stupid contracts we were handing out. We wanted rid and other teams had us over a barrel and they knew it.

 

I very much doubt the likes of Huddersfield were paying full wack of what we were giving Danns per week. Or Preston were paying Gallagher 15/20k +. Even Bolton who are massively indebted, in my opinion it's unlikely they would be paying the full amount for Danns, Mills and Beckford.

 

We can add in Waghorn as well on that list we was probably costing us a pretty penny and never playing.  Wellens as well who we paid up his contract.

 

The club have consistently mentioned Pearson's money saving themselves. Perhaps they knew that long term costs were going to be down, but they would need to take a short term hit because of the other ongoing costs. All speculation of course, but certainly not outrageous.

 

The squad undoubtedly performed much, much better but they didn't cost less.

As I clearly said, the squad he was using.

[Captain...]

Danns was still a Leicester player, and as I said the others are an educated guess. Based on the stupid contracts we were handing out. We wanted rid and other teams had us over a barrel and they knew it.

I very much doubt the likes of Huddersfield were paying full wack of what we were giving Danns per week. Or Preston were paying Gallagher 15/20k +. Even Bolton who are massively indebted, in my opinion it's unlikely they would be paying the full amount for Danns, Mills and Beckford.

As I clearly said, the squad he was using.

I seem to remember Beckford took a pay cut to leave but we had to pay up the loss in earnings on Mills's contract to shift him.

[Babylon]

I seem to remember Beckford took a pay cut to leave but we had to pay up the loss in earnings on Mills's contract to shift him.

Yeah I remember both being mentioned, but who really knows! Would certainly be interesting to see how the wage figures actually got broken down.

[fleckneymike]

Yeah I remember both being mentioned, but who really knows! Would certainly be interesting to see how the wage figures actually got broken down.

 

We certainly muddied the water with our multi million pound deal with Trestellar Limited which enabled us to maintain the wage bill and hit ffp.

 

The statement on the club website acknowledges the wage bill and why they 'increased/maintained' it

 

"Operating expenditure (excluding staff costs) was reduced by £8m to £12.3m (£20.3m in 2013). Staff costs increased to £36.3m (£26.8 in 2013), almost entirely due promotion bonus payments of £9.4m."

 

"Other increases in staff costs were managed by a prudent approach to the judicious strengthening the Club’s football management felt the squad needed to achieve its goals."

 

aka we spent more.