Pearson - was his departure inevitable - more meat to the bone

[davieG]

From the Merc

Nigel Pearson's impending move to Hull City is a bitter blow to Leicester City – but was his departure almost inevitable?

And did his position become almost untenable?

Pearson is a very private man who keeps his own counsel, except to a very few close and trusted colleagues. He certainly doesn't express any discord to the media.

However, although he never said anything in public, it became increasingly obvious to those around him during the final few months of last season that he was becoming frustrated at City.

City's growing financial problems had put the pressure on chief executive Lee Hoos to reduce the club's running costs and all aspects of the club were looked at for cuts.

Even the media's match-day sandwiches were withdrawn to save a few quid.

However, the football side was also looked at and Pearson feared he would come under pressure eventually to either cut his backroom team or his support staff, including his cherished sports science department. He lost reserve team boss Gerry Taggart when his request to join a reserve league next season after two years of merely playing friendlies was denied, which added to his discontent.

According to sources, he became even more frustrated over delays in being told his budget for next season.

He was also working under the proviso that he would have no money to spend unless he sold players, but was reluctant to part with any squad members without assurances he would be able to replace them.

He certainly had no intention of selling his prized assets and admitted to the Mercury recently that he would fight to keep the likes of Jack Hobbs and Andy King. Also, as widely reported, negotiations for a new contract also broke down and Pearson rejected one offer which he considered unacceptable.

The Mercury understands it was not his financial package that was the major problem, but Pearson wanted assurances over his budget and the future of his backroom staff.

After taking the club to the League One title and then the Championship play-offs, Pearson was keen to build on the foundations he had laid, but became concerned that he would be unable to do so.

It may be that in the back of Pearson's mind was the fates suffered by Gary Johnson at Bristol City and Alan Irvine at Preston North End.

Both achieved success, relatively speaking, by taking their clubs to the play-offs, but were unable to meet the growing expectation and, despite doing notable work, eventually lost their jobs.

As a result, it appears Pearson's relationship with the club's hierarchy began to deteriorate, although he never fell out with owner Milan Mandaric personally.

Those relationships were further strained when several potential transfer deals fell through and Pearson was upset when striker DJ Campbell was allowed to join promotion rivals Blackpool in January, when he thought he was going to Derby County.

So, Pearson was left unsure about his own future and the club was left with a manager who was growing increasingly unhappy. Therefore, a split became almost inevitable.

But why go to Hull City, a club that has just been relegated from the Premier League, reportedly with big financial problems and with a smaller fanbase than City? That is the aspect many fans may have trouble with.

It may simply be that Hull were in the right place at the right time to capitalise on the situation at City.

Fingers will be pointed in various directions as City fans look for someone to blame for City losing arguably their most successful and certainly the most popular manager since Martin O'Neill.

However, it might just be that, like a sad divorce, the two parties were moving in different directions.

Pearson's place in City history is assured and the work he did during his two-year tenure cannot be questioned. He did a fantastic job but now he has gone.

Now Mandaric will have to court a successor who can continue the fine work Pearson has started.

Step forward the next City manager!

[lcfcadam]

Step forward the next City manager!

From the sounds of the rest of that article, I fail to see who the fook would actually want the job.

[Dr The Singh]

Fair assessment. Pearson leaving is no-ones fault. MM's money has dried up, he's no longer willing to spend out of his pocket and Pearson is ambitious.

[Cheese Me]

Load of wild speculation - 'Pearson certainly didn't express any discord to the media' but suddenly the Mercury know what he was thinking? They just have to fill column inches, can't blame them for doing their job but I wouldn't read too much into the details here.

[Thracian]

Load of wild speculation - 'Pearson certainly didn't express any discord to the media' but suddenly the Mercury know what he was thinking? They just have to fill column inches, can't blame them for doing their job but I wouldn't read too much into the details here.

Quite agree. If the Mercury know so much why don't they have the bottle to tell us at the time.

Pearson wouldn't be the first manager to have to do his job with the handicap of contraints. If he was so keen to run a club rather than manage a club why didn't he buy one as I'd suggest to anyone who'd happily decide what other people should do with their money.

If Mandaric had said Pearson could only buy players after selling first what the hell is wrong with that? We had enough of experience of wasting money on big squads of players we didn't need and who never deserved to wear the shirt. And nothing much changed apart from the numbers last season. Some of our players need moving on and some shouldn't ever have arrived. That's the reality.

For me Pearson's an opportunist. He'd have been found out this season for the limited manager I believe he is. Bottom line is we didn't score nearly enough goals last season nor did we show enough attacking commitment to win the points that might have stopped us ever needing to face the play-offs lottery. We carried far too many passengers and lacked for far too many vital skills.

Some say we did well last season but for me we underperformed and without good reason for much of the time. Pearson knew we'd need 75 goals or more to have a shout for automatic promotion and we fell short by a distance. Analysis of why doesn't really matter. That is the truth of it.

Pearson's apparent achievement was to win a promotion that was hard to throw away and to stabilise a distinctly unsteady ship but even that seems questionable given his likely departure at such an important time. Why Mandaric didn't sort the situation before now I don't know. Too often we seem to end up in disarray during the close season despite it being such a vital time and when so much groundwork should be accomplished even before players go on holiday.

Pearson will probably be missed during the period of instability his absence will make inevitable. But I don't mourn his departure for any other reason. Anyone can manage with a bottomless pit of money. But I'm not sure Pearson was ever inspiring enough to make something of next-to-nothing. I remember too many of our dour performances in the second half of our promotion year when the biggest reason we got up was really down to having more money than most of our rivals rather than anything we stood for in terms of exhilerating football.

[Guest]

If Mandaric had said Pearson could only buy players after selling first what the hell is wrong with that? We had enough of experience of wasting money on big squads of players we didn't need and who never deserved to wear the shirt. Some of our players need moving on and some shouldn't ever have arrived. That's the reality.

Agree with that.

It's just sad that the wasteful nature of previous managers and the cost of relegation etc. have ultimately cost us one of the best managers we've had in some time

[Number 6]

Quite agree. If the Mercury know so much why don't they have the bottle to tell us at the time.

Pearson wouldn't be the first manager to have to do his job with the handicap of contraints. If he was so keen to run a club rather than manage a club why didn't he buy one as I'd suggest to anyone who'd happily decide what other people should do with their money.

If Mandaric had said Pearson could only buy players after selling first what the hell is wrong with that? We had enough of experience of wasting money on big squads of players we didn't need and who never deserved to wear the shirt. And nothing much changed apart from the numbers last season. Some of our players need moving on and some shouldn't ever have arrived. That's the reality.

For me Pearson's an opportunist. He'd have been found out this season for the limited manager I believe he is. Bottom line is we didn't score nearly enough goals last season nor did we show enough attacking commitment to win the points that might have stopped us ever needing to face the play-offs lottery. We carried far too many passengers and lacked for far too many vital skills.

Some say we did well last season but for me we underperformed and without good reason for much of the time. Pearson knew we'd need 75 goals or more to have a shout for automatic promotion and we fell short by a distance. Analysis of why doesn't really matter. That is the truth of it.

Pearson's apparent achievement was to win a promotion that was hard to throw away and to stabilise a distinctly unsteady ship but even that seems questionable given his likely departure at such an important time. Why Mandaric didn't sort the situation before now I don't know. Too often we seem to end up in disarray during the close season despite it being such a vital time and when so much groundwork should be accomplished even before players go on holiday.

Pearson will probably be missed during the period of instability his absence will make inevitable. But I don't mourn his departure for any other reason. Anyone can manage with a bottomless pit of money. But I'm not sure Pearson was ever inspiring enough to make something of next-to-nothing. I remember too many of our dour performances in the second half of our promotion year when the biggest reason we got up was really down to having more money than most of our rivals rather than anything we stood for in terms of exhilerating football.

I still don't understand your points = goals arguement. S****horpe scored 1 more goal than us and finished 15 places lower. Blackpool scored 74 (one off your target) and only just made the play offs. Surely it's a points target we should have?

[Flynny]

Thracian how can we be lacking in vital skills AND underperforming? We were overachieving if anything.

[Thracian]

I still don't understand your points = goals arguement. S****horpe scored 1 more goal than us and finished 15 places lower. Blackpool scored 74 (one off your target) and only just made the play offs. Surely it's a points target we should have?

Retrospectively you can argue that loudly enough. But 75+ goals is the sort of target that was always likely to get you promoted and we could have committed odurselves to scoring far more than we did. And that's quite apart from the football factor.

Pearson, like so many others, was a "what we have we hold" manager. So often we went all negative once we'd scored or only committed ourselves to sustained attack if we went behind and until such time as we had something to defend. At times we were negative as England and that's about as shameful as I could say it.

One day, just one day, we will appoint a genuinely adventurous manager. A guy with one simple philosophy and one sort of approach on the training ground... "Your first job today lads, is to get the sodding ball and keep it. Your second job is to score. And when you score, your next job is to score again and still make sure they don't get the ball..."

One look at Wayne Brown was regular proof that the idea of retaining possession was just some theory in a coaching manual and sod all to do with the applied philosophy at City.

[Number 6]

Retrospectively you can argue that loudly enough. But 75+ goals is the sort of target that was always likely to get you promoted and we could have committed odurselves to scoring far more than we did. And that's quite apart from the football factor.

Pearson, like so many others, was a "what we have we hold" manager. So often we went all negative once we'd scored or only committed ourselves to sustained attack if we went behind and until such time as we had something to defend. At times we were negative as England and that's about as shameful as I could say it.

One day, just one day, we will appoint a genuinely adventurous manager. A guy with one simple philosophy and one sort of approach on the training ground... "Your first job today lads, is to get the sodding ball and keep it. Your second job is to score. And when you score, your next job is to score again and still make sure they don't get the ball..."

One look at Wayne Brown was regular proof that the idea of retaining possession was just some theory in a coaching manual and sod all to do with the applied philosophy at City.

In fairness the highest scoring team in the play offs did go up. I understand your point that there is some correlation between goals and points and we'd all love to see the football you talk of. I guess if Mowbray came in we may see that strategy, although he found out it only gets you so far.

[marbelladave]

In fairness the highest scoring team in the play offs did go up. I understand your point that there is some correlation between goals and points and we'd all love to see the football you talk of. I guess if Mowbray came in we may see that strategy, although he found out it only gets you so far.

It is entirely possible to be too attacking, whilst I agree we were way too negative during Pearson's time I feel that a balanced approach is what is required.

Dump the hoofers certainly and consign the long ball to the bin, but to be successful you need an all round game. We have a squad that forms the basis for such a team, sure we need a right back, a decent midfielder and a pacy striker, not a lot else really. If we use the players we do have effectively then we do not need much else to be competitive.