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

[inckley fox]

The irony. You call him for 'speculation' (which was actually based on something perfectly valid) whilst tackling it with genuine 'speculation' in second-season syndrome (which is an unproven myth).

 

I don't think there's any problem with speculating about anything so long as you understand that you're speculating, and so long as your speculation isn't all directed to one single conclusion - i.e. the only scenarios you discuss are ones which discredit Pearson or, at the other extreme, make him out to be the messiah. There are plenty of solid facts which point to him being a great Leicester manager and very little to convincingly counter it with, but on the other hand there are all sorts of conceivable possibilities which would either add to the anger at his loss, or alleviate it. But 'second season syndrome' isn't really speculation, it's just wrong. There's very little to suggest that 'the second season is the one you've really got to watch out for'.

[inckley fox]

You know... the board/owners were the people who, for the benefit of the club...appointed Pearson, and according to all reports, that was a very successful appointment. Therefore, we must assume that this appointment (by the same people) for the benefit of the club might be very successful also?

 

Are you being serious here? I genuinely can't tell!

[ozleicester]

Are you being serious here? I genuinely can't tell!

 

To be quite honest, im not sure either.

 

We acknowledge that since the owners/board have taken over, we have had the best seasons in 10+ years, so that means they are good.. doesnt it?

 

If we accept that their decisions have given us the best seasons... should we then accept that their most recent decisions might also lead to improvement and even better seasons?

 

No one ever gets EVERY decision right, but its safe to say on evidence thus far, that the current board/owners have demonstrated that they are aiming for improvement and success for LCFC.

 

so, having written that... i think, yes, i am serious  .

[Foxhateram]

You know... the board/owners were the people who, for the benefit of the club...appointed Pearson, and according to all reports, that was a very successful appointment. Therefore, we must assume that this appointment (by the same people) for the benefit of the club might be very successful also?

They also sacked Pearson (twice) before reinstating him (twice) someone somewhere is telling them, no your wrong. I reckon it was Neville. Now Neville has gone and Rudkin is in (who seems to be far more involved than Neville ever was) it's all change.

I don't think the owners ever liked Nige. He isn't a big name and doesn't really earn them money. So therefore they have always wanted to replace him with a name for the media coverage.

Sven was rubbish. Sousa was worse.

I will give Claudio the chance he deserves but I am worried about his yes man, puppet like demeanor. I worry that the owners are going to be more involved in our team now.

[Raj]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2188224/Premier-League--does-second-season-syndrome-exist.html

I was wrong,apologize.

So we would have finished in the top 10 under Nigel...bugger!!!

[Captain...]

They also sacked Pearson (twice) before reinstating him (twice) someone somewhere is telling them, no your wrong. I reckon it was Neville. Now Neville has gone and Rudkin is in (who seems to be far more involved than Neville ever was) it's all change.

I don't think the owners ever liked Nige. He isn't a big name and doesn't really earn them money. So therefore they have always wanted to replace him with a name for the media coverage.

Sven was rubbish. Sousa was worse.

I will give Claudio the chance he deserves but I am worried about his yes man, puppet like demeanor. I worry that the owners are going to be more involved in our team now.

More Lies, unless I am misunderstanding you, they didn't sack Pearson the first time, he left. He quit for Hull. Hull approached, Mandaric said yes and Pearson left. Maybe you should remember that as you gaze up at him on his pedestal. He left us for Hull, that is a fact. You can blame Mandy and Hoos for letting Hull talk to him and engineering him out the door, but it still remains a fact that Pearson quit.

The owners brought him back. They don't hate him, if they did he would have been gone after the Watford play off, they had a very good working relationship with him until he decided to publicly embarrass himself and therefore the club.

He was a great manager for us and should rightly be remembered as one of the best, but he had his faults on and off the pitch. Deifying Nigel and attacking the owners is not going to help the situation. This situation has come about because of faults in both sides, and if you can't see that in some ways Nigel has been the architect of his own demise then there is no hope. Just quit with the lies and the shit stirring.

[Kitchandro]

These are the 2 statements that are hard to reconcile. On the one hand, the working relationship had broken down so a change was needed. On the other, a change was needed to pursue the owners' long-term objectives and vision. Figure that one out!

 

Maybe it's just a load of flannel designed to keep the waters muddied, or a load of poorly-expressed guff, Maybe, on the other hand, the working relationship broke down, at least in part, because of "fundamental differences in perspective" (first statement) over "the owners' long-term objectives and vision"? So, disagreements over football development strategy might be more central than some believe. 

 

Of course, that might only be part of the story. Maybe their patience had been stretched by the media incidents, culminating in the Thai holiday fiasco....and then a dispute arose over wage structure, transfer policy, achievement targets or whatever.

 

The bit about legal issues sounds genuine to me. If there had been no legal issues pending and NP had been sacked without justification, surely he'd have made a few acerbic comments to the media, as he did in the wake of his 2010 departure: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/leicester_city/9055151.stmInstead, he seems to have completely gone to ground. The alternative is that he was sacked with very good justification - not just differences of opinion, but downright abuse or insubordination - but then surely there'd be no legal issues and it would be in the board's interest to get the fans onside by making clear that NP had done something completely out of order?

 

As Thracian and others have rightly said, none of this is Ranieri's doing, so we need to give him a fair chance. He seems a likeable man, with a lot of experience and I hope he takes us forward. Now, though, I'm approaching this season "fingers crossed" that we get lucky with him and curious about how this massive gamble will work out....whereas I'd have been fired up with (controlled) optimism and fierce commitment if this managerial change hadn't happened. Hopefully, it'll work out well and we'll all be singing Ranieri's praises in a few weeks time, delighted at how he's building on Pearson's legacy and taking us further. Unfairly, though, he'll be in for a tough time if we're struggling.

 

My main hope now is that we don't see wholesale changes in the squad. Maybe 3-4 players (preferably including Cambiasso) to improve the 1st team squad, plus the odd talented youngster capable of making an impact in 1-2 years time. I hope Ranieri can motivate, work with and slowly improve the existing squad.   

 

Good post.

[The Doctor]

FOOTBALL LEAGUE.

This is the Barclays English Premier League!!

Have you heard about second season syndrome?...Your statement is wildly speculative at best.. So much so that I'm now going bed!!!

Second season syndrome is an utter fallacy that rarely happens, and to the tiny fraction of clubs it does happen to, they tend to have done something utterly stupid that season... So if you believe it's a thing (and it isn't), we've actually just made second season syndrome more likely

[Raj]

If you read my post of this morning,you'd have seen I apologized after doing some research that I did in fact get my facts wrong.What do you want?.Blood!!!

[Dan LCFC]

It came across as a standard diplomatic press conference and disclosed about as much as they could, really.

I was more interested in what Ranieri had to say. To me, he's saying all the right things so far, even complimenting the previous manager's spirit as a factor that contributed to the end of season run.

It appears to me that some people aren't even prepared to give him a chance for the only reason that he's not Pearson. It isn't Ranieri's fault that he's replaced him, he's now in charge and we should support him. However you feel about Pearson's sacking should be aimed at those that made the decision not his replacement.

I'm prepared to give Ranieri a chance and to be honest, I'm not expected too much in this first year as, despite what he says, his playing style as well as management style in general will be different to what the players are used to. To improve on last year's position and points tally would be nothing but miraculous.

I don't think we can really compare this appointment to Sven's appointment other than us employing someone who comes with a huge reputation. Sven's appointment wasn't at the right time, being still in the Championship. The player purchases were poor as no one decent wanted to drop down to that level and any player that had a decent reputation cost us a fortune as clubs realised we had money. Let's face it, most of the players Sven brought to the club had been having relative success at their previous clubs.

Even the appointment of Sousa wasn't too left-field. He'd had relative success at Swansea and had a reputation in the game due to his playing career. He's also gone on to have some success at other clubs. He just tried too change too much, too soon.

In a time when people complain about managers not being given enough time to turn things around, we should stick with the new manager the same way we stuck with Pearson. Let's face it, without Pearson's previous success here, taking last season only into consideration, he would have been sacked properly on that crazy Sunday night as results and performances were below par. The club remained faithful and we're enjoying the rewards.

It's a shame Pearson had to go, he had improved year on year and as a relatively young manager, he was also learning the job himself, particularly at this level, but he's gone now and we must move on.

 

Echo pretty much all of that. I don't blame Ranieri for anything yet.

[Dan LCFC]

That is a bit myth building as he was good season one (promotion) and improved a bit further season 2 - season 3 he was pants at Hull and finished below Sven's City side and season 4 got back to where he was after season 2 which included the worst run we have had for years - season 5 he did very well (improved) and season 6 did well for 9 games at the end and 5 at the beginning but otherwise was poor - 6 seasons without ever really getting above the lower third of the Prem and then only for 2 weeks at the end of the season - it was OK but not as great as the faithful believe - or do I expect too much?

 

Honestly? Yes. Every single year Pearson was here we finished higher than we did the year before. Nothing speaks progress to me more than that.

[Kitchandro]

We acknowledge that since the owners/board have taken over, we have had the best seasons in 10+ years, so that means they are good.. doesnt it?

 

No. Cardiff had their best ever season under Vincent Tan. Hull reached the FA Cup final under Allam. Newcastle had their best season in about 10 years under Mike Ashley in 2012.

 

The Thais made a good decision to hire Pearson (after the poor decision to hire Sven). And, in fairness, they did well to stick with him through some tough times when many others would have gotten rid. But the good times haven't returned since they took over, they coincided with Pearson taking over the first time, and then, after a bit of time to build the squad, the second time. The period in between Pearson's two spells was fairly depressing in comparison.

 

I don't think they're relatively bad owners, but it's foolish to think that good times equals good owners. They've done some good things that have paid off but let's not pretend Pearson didn't get them out of the shit in the first place when they'd spunked a load of money on Sven and his squad.

 

Timing is everything and a change at the time they made it was ill-advised and unnecessary. Ranieri may go on to be a good appointment but we had no plan from the start and we stumbled upon him more than anything. He was the first bloke who wanted the job ffs.

 

I hope it all works out but I certainly don't trust they know what they're doing.

[Sharpe's Fox]

Yep also the Glazers

[sylofox]

No. Cardiff had their best ever season under Vincent Tan. Hull reached the FA Cup final under Allam. Newcastle had their best season in about 10 years under Mike Ashley in 2012.

 

The Thais made a good decision to hire Pearson (after the poor decision to hire Sven). And, win fairness, they did well to stick with him through some tough times when many others would have gotten rid. But the good times haven't returned since they took over, they coincided with Pearson taking over the first time, and then, after a bit of time to build the squad, the second time. The period in between Pearson's two spells was fairly depressing in comparison.

 

I don't think they're relatively bad owners, but it's foolish to think that good times equals good owners. They've done some good things that have paid off but let's not pretend Pearson didn't get them out of the shit in the first place when they'd spunked a load of money on Sven and his squad.

 

Timing is everything and a change at the time they made it was ill-advised and unnecessary. Ranieri may go on to be a good appointment but we had no plan from the start and we stumbled upon him more than anything. He was the first bloke who wanted the job ffs.

 

I hope it all works out but I certainly don't trust they know what they're doing.

You mean like 95% of people wanted too 5 months ago on here.

 

As some of us said at the time careful what you wish for.

Well now you have all got what you wanted you all seem very pissed off by it.

Here was me thinking 95% of the forum would be jumping for joy that he has been sacked.

[Webbo]

You mean like 95% of people wanted too 5 months ago on here.

 

As some of us said at the time careful what you wish for.

Well now you have all got what you wanted you all seem very pissed off by it.

Here was me thinking 95% of the forum would be jumping for joy that he has been sacked.

I don't think 95% wanted him gone, probably less than 50%.

[sylofox]

I don't think 95% wanted him gone, probably less than 50%.

Yeah 95% was a bit over the top but I don't think any would have been bothered had he been sacked in march.

But it seems like because he turned it round everyone is backing him now.

[Webbo]

Yeah 95% was a bit over the top but I don't think any would have been bothered had he been sacked in march.

But it seems like because he turned it round everyone is backing him now.

Can't argue with that.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Good post.

Yes, it was a very good post. 

[Raw Dykes]

That is a bit myth building as he was good season one (promotion) and improved a bit further season 2 - season 3 he was pants at Hull and finished below Sven's City side and season 4 got back to where he was after season 2 which included the worst run we have had for years - season 5 he did very well (improved) and season 6 did well for 9 games at the end and 5 at the beginning but otherwise was poor - 6 seasons without ever really getting above the lower third of the Prem and then only for 2 weeks at the end of the season - it was OK but not as great as the faithful believe - or do I expect too much?

 

It's incredible to watch someone put so much effort into spinning the facts to fit their preconceived ideas.

 

Admit it, you'd made up your mind that you didn't like Pearson, for whatever reason, and now you have to try to make it look like he wasn't a good manager, just to make your opinion seem less ill-informed, rather than simply changing your mind.

 

You were more than happy to see Sven struggling in the Championship while blowing millions on absolute rubbish like Michael Ball and Michael Johnson, but you still find a way to paint Pearson leading us to 14th in the top flight as somehow a disappointment. Do you realise we hadn't survived a Premiership campaign in 14 years? That was our best finish since we finished 13th in 2000-01. What did you expect exactly?

 

 

1st season - Champions of League 1. Promotion at first time of asking, and in style. Promotion was the target, but we've seen clubs as big as us or bigger get stuck down there many times, and we walked it.

 

2nd season - Play-offs in Championship. Target was consolidation. Massively overacheived with a poverty squad.

 

3rd season - Given the job of overhauling a relegated Hull side full of PL rejects on huge wages. Was he pants, or did he lay the foundations of the side that got automatic promotion just a couple of years later? You can try to compare his finish with Sven's here if you like, but in order to do so, you'd have to ignore the fact that the clubs were in very different situations and had different aims. Hull were desperately cutting back, while we were splashing the cash like there was no limit.

 

4th season (1st season back) - came back here in November to a flabby mess of a squad. Got rid of over 30 players, IIRC and signed Morgan and Drinkwater that January. A 9th place finish while completely revamping the squad on a miniature budget isn't bad, is it?

 

5th season (2nd season back) - Play-offs in Championship again. Frustrating season, but still an improvement on the year before.

 

6th season (3rd season back) - Walked the league. Was embarrassing at times how easy it was. All the groundwork clicked big time.

 

7th season (4th season back) - 14th in Premier League. Target was survival. Overachieved with a respectable finish. People will say we were rubbish for months, but who cares? The only time the league table matters is at the end of the season, whether you like it or not.

 

 

That is improvement every year without fail. He built a successful squad, left, came back to an expensive abomination and turned it into one of the best Leicester City sides there's ever been. We were often an absolute joy to watch the past two seasons, even if we weren't getting the results we deserved for a long time.

[inckley fox]

Yeah 95% was a bit over the top but I don't think any would have been bothered had he been sacked in march.

But it seems like because he turned it round everyone is backing him now.

 

It's a fairly good reason to back him, isn't it? You know, convincingly surpassing your primary objective of survival. People thought he should leave back in March because it looked like he wasn't going to achieve that. But he did, so they - myself included - were wrong to have wanted him gone for that reason. I fail to believe that anybody can't understand this, unless they are absolutely hell-bent on not understanding it.

[inckley fox]

More Lies, unless I am misunderstanding you, they didn't sack Pearson the first time, he left. He quit for Hull. Hull approached, Mandaric said yes and Pearson left. Maybe you should remember that as you gaze up at him on his pedestal. He left us for Hull, that is a fact. You can blame Mandy and Hoos for letting Hull talk to him and engineering him out the door, but it still remains a fact that Pearson quit.

The owners brought him back. They don't hate him, if they did he would have been gone after the Watford play off, they had a very good working relationship with him until he decided to publicly embarrass himself and therefore the club.

He was a great manager for us and should rightly be remembered as one of the best, but he had his faults on and off the pitch. Deifying Nigel and attacking the owners is not going to help the situation. This situation has come about because of faults in both sides, and if you can't see that in some ways Nigel has been the architect of his own demise then there is no hope. Just quit with the lies and the shit stirring.

 

I think we were far more embarrassed by our league position than we were by Pearson occasionally being a bit weird. That sort of behaviour, as many said at the time, only seemed beyond the pale because we were so utterly, miserably unsuccessful at the time. I didn't see too many people back in May saying 'well our final league position was great, I just wish Pearson would stop embarrassing himself'.

 

So if any of that was the reason for his sacking than I'd be even more appalled than I am by the complete absence of a reason. At least there's the possibility, as it stands, of there being a justification for his sacking, albeit one that none of us know about, and therefore can't use in defence of the board.

 

As for their role in his first exit, well there's nothing we can be 100% sure of. But Pearson did say that he left because, among other things, he saw the new owners being shown around without him being introduced to them, and Sousa was already attending games. We know that takeover talks were underway in late June 2010 when the approach for Pearson was accepted, that the actual financial takeover began just weeks later - days after Sousa was, finally, appointed - and that they made plenty more changes before their ownership received league approval, including signings which they publicly took credit for.

 

So it's unthinkable that they were entirely powerless when it came to accepting Hull's approach for Pearson. Their role in the affair might have been a case of Mandaric saying 'look, our manager is a pain in the neck, but don't worry - I'll sort that out for you' and they, taking his word for it, opting to go along with the idea, or it might have been a case of them saying to Mandaric 'we want a big name, a continental manager, so get rid of this guy for us'.

 

They certainly did this with Sven, and with Ranieri, whereas Mandaric had six different managers before Sousa (if Worthington is included), and all of them were British. So if the prime suspects are Mandaric or King Power when it comes to swapping a successful English manager for a well-known foreign manager, the historical evidence might point to the latter. Plus we know for a fact that they were involved in the club at the time and could, almost certainly, have intervened to discourage his exit. It's very hard to be critical of them for this in isolation - and highly speculative to guess at how great a part they played - but in the context of other decisions they have made, there are at very least some major question marks over their role in Pearson's first exit.

[MC Prussian]

I don't think 95% wanted him gone, probably less than 50%.

Maybe. But those near-fifty percent vented their anger many times and rather loudly. At the worst of times, FT felt like a proper nuthouse last season.

[Captain...]

I think we were far more embarrassed by our league position than we were by Pearson occasionally being a bit weird. That sort of behaviour, as many said at the time, only seemed beyond the pale because we were so utterly, miserably unsuccessful at the time. I didn't see too many people back in May saying 'well our final league position was great, I just wish Pearson would stop embarrassing himself'.

So if any of that was the reason for his sacking than I'd be even more appalled than I am by the complete absence of a reason. At least there's the possibility, as it stands, of there being a justification for his sacking, albeit one that none of us know about, and therefore can't use in defence of the board.

As for their role in his first exit, well there's nothing we can be 100% sure of. But Pearson did say that he left because, among other things, he saw the new owners being shown around without him being introduced to them, and Sousa was already attending games. We know that takeover talks were underway in late June 2010 when the approach for Pearson was accepted, that the actual financial takeover began just weeks later - days after Sousa was, finally, appointed - and that they made plenty more changes before their ownership received league approval, including signings which they publicly took credit for.

So it's unthinkable that they were entirely powerless when it came to accepting Hull's approach for Pearson. Their role in the affair might have been a case of Mandaric saying 'look, our manager is a pain in the neck, but don't worry - I'll sort that out for you' and they, taking his word for it, opting to go along with the idea, or it might have been a case of them saying to Mandaric 'we want a big name, a continental manager, so get rid of this guy for us'.

They certainly did this with Sven, and with Ranieri, whereas Mandaric had six different managers before Sousa (if Worthington is included), and all of them were British. So if the prime suspects are Mandaric or King Power when it comes to swapping a successful English manager for a well-known foreign manager, the historical evidence might point to the latter. Plus we know for a fact that they were involved in the club at the time and could, almost certainly, have intervened to discourage his exit. It's very hard to be critical of them for this in isolation - and highly speculative to guess at how great a part they played - but in the context of other decisions they have made, there are at very least some major question marks over their role in Pearson's first exit.

Don't forget Mandy was still involved and advising when Sven was appointed.

It has been publicly stated by Pearson that his issue was with Hoos and Mandaric. I've not seen him say Mandy was showing prospective owners around, but it was no secret he was looking to sell the club, that would be pretty minor anyway compared to Sousa being their guest at games. I do get fed up seeing bollocks like they sacked him when he quit and other baseless speculation and lies.

As for Pearson's sacking it was clear their relationship was breaking down when he was sacked, he must have known he was on a last warning if something happened in relation to Pearson junior then any outburst or insubordination is going to be grounds for dismissal. Especially at the ideal time to change a manager. If it was purely because of the fact his son was involved then it is a little harsh, but I find it more likely to be something Pearson said or did otherwise he would have been sacked earlier or the manager search would have been a lot more advanced.

[Captain...]

Maybe. But those near-fifty percent vented their anger many times and rather loudly. At the worst of times, FT felt like a proper nuthouse last season.

Only once did managerial approval rating drop below 50%, I think.

There were always a very noisy anti Pearson minority on here.

[cjslcfc]

I still don't get where the idea that we fluked the last 10/11 games comes from?

 

You just don't fluke 7 wins in 9 games, especially with the football that we played. To get a team playing like that is pretty damn good and it really confuses me why some are so keen to write that off just because we also struggled for a significant chunk of the season.

 

We will never know how this season would have panned out under Pearson. However, it's safe to say, given how we played towards the end of last season (and the early signings we had made), that things were looking very promising. It's undoubtedly a risk to then get rid of the manager under these circumstances and replace him with someone who appears to have a very different managerial and tactical approach. Too much change at once could be so detrimental. Nevertheless, I am right behind Ranieri and have a gut feeling that he will do a very good job here. He certainly seems hungry enough and determined enough to prove his doubters wrong. He's saying the right things at the moment and I really do hope he sticks to his word and doesn't try to change too much. We were heading in a really good direction. He needs to harness that momentum and could even take us to a level Pearson couldn't. Although we will never truly know what our limit was under Pearson.