Webbo Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 The facts are that he played for Pearson, didn't renew before or - crucially - after he left, and hadn't enjoyed much success in an otherwise successful career during a previous collaboration with Ranieri. With this in mind I'd understand why somebody might think the Pearson-for-Ranieri switch might have something to do with his leaving. What about the fact that he didn't sign while Pearson was still here?He might not have won the league with Ranieri at Inter but I don't think he thought signing for Leicester was going to earn him a league medal. It's certainly far more logical than assuming that Pearson was fired for serious misconduct and that the decision was therefore the right decision, even though there isn't a shred of evidence to back this up. Or for assuming that the decision must be the right one because our board always make the right decision (except for, well, pretty much anything they've ever done other than re-appointing Pearson and backing him up with adequate funds). Or for assuming that if somebody is fired then, regardless of how good at their job they might have been or the complete absence of a reason to support this sacking, we should all just accept that it's clearly the right thing to do. Whatever.
Mickyblueeyes Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 I'm apprehensive about next season. In the space of four weeks we have gone from having stability and potentially adding to a squad more or less the same as last season. To a club with many new starts to the new season. A new start doesn't mean it is going to be bad but naturally, it makes people nervous as to whether Ranieri tactics will be a hit. Whether cambiasso's replacement will hold the same influence and whether we will push on or go backwards. Cambiasso going may have happened whether Pearson was here or not. But the hope he would sign is now gone - and the reality sinks in. In the same way Pearson may not have been as succesful next year as he has been in the past. But Ranieri is unknown quantity until he actually starts the season which makes one nervous. That doesn't mean I've lost faith it's just a natural reaction to sudden unexpected change.
Frank to be Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 He's still here. Now regardless of what Pearson wanted the owners obviously aren't bothered about him being sacked because as i've stated he's still here. Maybe if it happened in their homeland it'd be a different story but again i'm only assuming... Probably because the Thai 3 were being paid to be ambassadors for the club on a goodwill tour while Simpson's misdeeds were done in his private life. Like if you punch someone outside of work you probably wouldn't get sacked from your job, but if you punched someone while at work you would.
ScouseFox Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 opening post by dangerous tiger repped by jon doe IM OUT
The Horse's Mouth Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 It's because we've massively rocked the boat, stability has gone which would be perfectly fine if we werent on the fringes of relegation.
Matt Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 Probably because the Thai 3 were being paid to be ambassadors for the club on a goodwill tour while Simpson's misdeeds were done in his private life. Like if you punch someone outside of work you probably wouldn't get sacked from your job, but if you punched someone while at work you would. Club statement; "Leicester City Football Club is acutely aware of its position, and that of its players, as a representative of the city of Leicester, the Premier League, the Football Association and the Club's supporters. "It is committed to promoting a positive message of community and family values and equality, and to upholding the standards expected of a club with its history, tradition and aspirations
Frank to be Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 Club statement; Simpson wasn't representing the club while he was doing what he did. The Thai 3 were.
Matt Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 Simpson wasn't representing the club while he was doing what he did. The Thai 3 were. They felt it was needed to put a press release and statement out there though; http://www.espnfc.co.uk/leicester-city/story/2461879/leicester-wont-consider-danny-simpson-for-first-team Yet all quiet when he is found guilty on the lcfc front. I don't really see what all the fuss was about with Luke McCormack, Lee Hughes, Ched Evens then, they weren't representing their clubs afterall....
MC Prussian Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 It's somewhat ironic that DT out of all people starts questioning other fans' sanity on this messageboard.
MC Prussian Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 Nobody's saying the squad is rubbish, but we do look incomplete, lack at least two central midfielders and have only just appointed a new manager with two more weeks to go before the start of the new season. This after parting ways with the most successful manager in ten, fifteen years. So, forgive me for being just a tad bit upset and/or apprehensive after years of stability and continuous progress.
inckley fox Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 Probably because the Thai 3 were being paid to be ambassadors for the club on a goodwill tour while Simpson's misdeeds were done in his private life. Like if you punch someone outside of work you probably wouldn't get sacked from your job, but if you punched someone while at work you would. How do you know what they were being paid to do? For all you and I know, it could just as easily have been billed a 'holiday' or an 'end-of-season celebration' as it was a 'goodwill tour in which players are expected to assume an ambassadorial role'. It's going to be a whole lot harder to convince new players to sign up if you suffix their terms and conditions with the lines 'oh by the way, you don't go on holiday at the end of the season, you go on an diplomatic business trip to Thailand, and you'll be fired if you don't act accordingly 24 hours a day'.
Frank to be Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 They felt it was needed to put a press release and statement out there though; https://twitter.com/henrywinter/status/601726671935414272 http://www.espnfc.co.uk/leicester-city/story/2461879/leicester-wont-consider-danny-simpson-for-first-team Yet all quiet when he is found guilty on the lcfc front. I don't really see what all the fuss was about with Luke McCormack, Lee Hughes, Ched Evens then, they weren't representing their clubs afterall.... That statement was made two days after he had been found guilty and says the club will investigate, but it doesn't really make any difference to what I'm saying anyway. Simpson didn't do anything wrong while representing the club so the club's reaction is bound to be less strong than for players who do wrong while on the clock.
Benji Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 I said it on the Cambiasso thread but personally I've just had the enthusiasm knocked out of me. I'm hopefuly before the season we'll sign one or two decent midfielders and the confidence will come back, but we've lost last season's player of the season and the stability of the manager. Add to that there has been no pick me up news yet - hopefully it's coming. I have to add that I think Drinkwater and James are two very talented players - but we're missing something in centre mid if we want to comfortably be above 18th this season.
Frank to be Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 How do you know what they were being paid to do? For all you any I know, it could just as easily have been billed a 'holiday' or an 'end-of-season celebration' as it was a 'goodwill tour in which players are expected to assume an ambassadorial role'. It's going to be a whole lot harder to convince new players to sign up if you suffix their terms and conditions with the lines 'oh by the way, you don't go on holiday at the end of the season, you go on an diplomatic business trip to Thailand, and you'll be fired if you don't act accordingly 24 hours a day'. I don't know but it seems to be the most obvious distinction between the two cases. The tours of Thailand are obviously promotional in nature and promoting the club would generally fall under the description of work and hence part of the players jobs in which they were expected to uphold certain standards. Simpson by contrast was at home in his free time.
inckley fox Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 What about the fact that he didn't sign while Pearson was still here?He might not have won the league with Ranieri at Inter but I don't think he thought signing for Leicester was going to earn him a league medal. Whatever. I think you'll find I discussed that too. And is he likely to win a major league medal with whoever he signs for next? Maybe he is, who knows. Like I said, I don't blame Ranieri and don't know anywhere near enough to assert that he would have signed had Pearson stayed on. But to laugh off the possibility that he might well have preferred signing for Pearson, whom he'd previously signed for, rather than a manager with whom he'd had a previous and unsuccessful collaboration, is a little silly. It may or may not be the most likely scenario, but it's certainly more likely than Pearson being fired for gross misconduct. Which he wasn't. Of course time, and results, will dictate whether it was right to exchange Pearson for Ranieri or not, but based on the evidence currently at hand, it's hard to say it was. It's equally hard to take any of your other opinions concerning Pearson all that seriously when you still can't accept something as fundamental as this.
Matt Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 That statement was made two days after he had been found guilty and says the club will investigate, but it doesn't really make any difference to what I'm saying anyway. Simpson didn't do anything wrong while representing the club so the club's reaction is bound to be less strong than for players who do wrong while on the clock. That makes it alright then. Look we're gonna have to agree to disagree like many discussions at the moment. But on duty/off duty it makes no difference in my eyes, he's done wrong and the statement I quote from the Thai 3 earlier - "Aware of its position, and that of its players.", "Committed to promoting a positive message of community and family values and equality" means on or off duty, they're in the spotlight and should be aware of their position (As says in the statement). Just out of interest are you supporting and sticking up for Simpson because it sound like it, especially with such flipant comments as "Simpson by contrast was at home in his free time.", You make it almost sound as if women beating is ok to do "at home in his free time".
Frank to be Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 That makes it alright then. Look we're gonna have to agree ree to disagree like many discussions at the moment. But on duty/off duty it makes no difference in my eyes, he's done wrong and the statement I quote from the Thai 3 earlier - "Aware of its position, and that of its players.", "Committed to promoting a positive message of community and family values and equality" means on or off duty, they're in the spotlight and should be aware of their position (As says in the statement). Just out of interest are you supporting and sticking up for Simpson because it sound like it, especially with such flipant comments as "Simpson by contrast was at home in his free time.", You make it almost sound as if women beating is ok to do "at home in his free time". You could interpret the club statement that way. You could interpret it in other ways. Obviously I'm not sticking up for Simpson. I'm just bringing up the most obvious distinction between the two cases as a possible explanation as to why they were dealt with differently. I'm not saying I'm right, but I haven't heard a more convincing theory yet. Why do you think it happened? Who knows, maybe the club felt like they'd already set a precedent with their tolerant approach to club representatives throttling other people
Carl the Llama Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 I have the day off tomorrow, might go to the school down the road and interfere with some of the children. Should be alright if I'm doing it in my spare time.
Raj Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 I'm simply peeved off that no matter what's happened,all the feel good factor and euphoria has all but evaporated and the season already looks like a long one before a balls even kicked in anger. Real Shame considering how the last 9odd games went.
EnglishOxide Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 Who knows, maybe the club felt like they'd already set a precedent with their tolerant approach to club representatives throttling other people Out of interest, do you genuinely believe he strangled McArthur? He put his hands around his throat in a jokey manner. It looks bad as a photograph. It was a bad move. But there is no suggestion from anyone anywhere that he actually throttled him so can you please stop saying it, yeah?
inckley fox Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 I don't know but it seems to be the most obvious distinction between the two cases. The tours of Thailand are obviously promotional in nature and promoting the club would generally fall under the description of work and hence part of the players jobs in which they were expected to uphold certain standards. Simpson by contrast was at home in his free time. I agree with much of this, but there are actually three clear distinctions between Simpson's case and that of the other three. On the one hand, as you say, it may well have been a 'goodwill tour' of some sort, though I'm sure new players will have some questions to ask about such future trips. Of course I doubt they'll intend to racially abuse any hookers in an internet porn sensation, but there are plenty of other things which could go wrong. And, of course, people don't tend to like seeing their working year extended. On the other hand, Simpson is a squad member who enjoyed a lengthy run in the first team, and cost us a great deal more to acquire (and to keep) than the 'Thai Three'. The third distinction is that, regardless of levels of perceived guilt (Simpson appears to have committed a crime, the Thai 3 don't, even though they're clearly guilty of behaving despicably), the stories have been reported to a different extent in different places. Some suggested that Pearson's sacking was connected to what happened in Thailand, and that the issue of saving 'face' in their homeland was central to it. In which case it's hard not to notice than Simpson's case made something of an impact in the English press, but was almost certainly ignored by the Thai Press. Personally, I believe the case is going to appeal and the club will choose to wait for the outcome. I also believe that, as you also suggest, they consider that pre-season trip to have had a 'goodwill' element to it. But it's hard to ignore the contrasting statures of the players in question, and the fact that our board have often seemed more worried about their public image in the Far East - and in its press - than about their image at home. Perhaps that's inevitable, but I can see how some people - especially in the light of Pearson's sacking - might worry about it.
Frank to be Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 I have the day off tomorrow, might go to the school down the road and interfere with some of the children. Should be alright if I'm doing it in my spare time. Do you think people should always be sacked by their employer whenever they commit a crime then?
Frank to be Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 Out of interest, do you genuinely believe he strangled McArthur? He put his hands around his throat in a jokey manner. It looks bad as a photograph. It was a bad move. But there is no suggestion from anyone anywhere that he actually throttled him so can you please stop saying it, yeah? We've all seen the incident mate, probably dozens of times each. If people want to call it a throttle that's their right. You've no right to shush them because it doesn't fit with your opinion.
EnglishOxide Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 Don't try and weasel your way out of it, I asked you a question.
Frank to be Posted 23 July 2015 Posted 23 July 2015 I agree with much of this, but there are actually three clear distinctions between Simpson's case and that of the other three. On the one hand, as you say, it may well have been a 'goodwill tour' of some sort, though I'm sure new players will have some questions to ask about such future trips. Of course I doubt they'll intend to racially abuse any hookers in an internet porn sensation, but there are plenty of other things which could go wrong. And, of course, people don't tend to like seeing their working year extended. On the other hand, Simpson is a squad member who enjoyed a lengthy run in the first team, and cost us a great deal more to acquire (and to keep) than the 'Thai Three'. The third distinction is that, regardless of levels of perceived guilt (Simpson appears to have committed a crime, the Thai 3 don't, even though they're clearly guilty of behaving despicably), the stories have been reported to a different extent in different places. Some suggested that Pearson's sacking was connected to what happened in Thailand, and that the issue of saving 'face' in their homeland was central to it. In which case it's hard not to notice than Simpson's case made something of an impact in the English press, but was almost certainly ignored by the Thai Press. Personally, I believe the case is going to appeal and the club will choose to wait for the outcome. I also believe that, as you also suggest, they consider that pre-season trip to have had a 'goodwill' element to it. But it's hard to ignore the contrasting statures of the players in question, and the fact that our board have often seemed more worried about their public image in the Far East - and in its press - than about their image at home. Perhaps that's inevitable, but I can see how some people - especially in the light of Pearson's sacking - might worry about it. The Thai three was definitely the bigger story over here as well. It wasn't far from making global headlines while the Simpson story was relatively minor. Not that media reaction should inform the clubs reaction necessarily but it does serve as an indication as to which event people in general found more distasteful. I think you're probably right about the club waiting for the result of Simpson's appeal before acting though, so he may yet be sacked.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.