Salieri Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 Well this news comes as no surprise, still very disappointing though, NP deserved far better treatment from the club. Most peoples anger is directed at Top (and rightly so) but i'm also pissed off with Mandaric. He's always banging on about his managers being men of their word, men of integrity etc then he goes and shits on Pearson from a great height. I understand he was desperate to get investment into the club, but he should have stood his ground and backed Nigel.
Matt Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 Old news really in my mind, Can't say it's my thoughts confirmed because nothing has been confirmed at the end of the day it's still rumour but it's what I thought ever since rumoured news broke the NP was pushed. Nothing we do or say will change anything though, what is done is done, we have what we have, we are where we are let's just get on with it. Part of me now wants Sousa to fail just to stick the finger up at Topp, but that's cutting my nose of to spite my face, Obviously I want the best for the team I support, Sousa failing isn't the best.
poopbutt Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 top peanut should have kept NP success is a lot more marketable
leftsideoverhere Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 When a supposedly promising up-and-coming manager takes more or less the same squad which Nigel got 2 kicks away from the Premiership to the lower end of mid table mediocrity, then you'll see how much of a 'winner' he was. Well, now we've got Waggy back (but permanently, thanks to the Thai consortium, in case anyone has forgotten) maybe now we'll be able to test that theory. But up until now, what we've witnessed is the rebuilding of a squad that lost some key loan players from the Pearson team, had very little brought in to it before Pearson left, and then had to cope with a new style of football and some new players who are clearly intended by Sousa to be 'for the future'.
leftsideoverhere Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 I'm not sure whether or not this is true, it's pure hearsay. Someone told me that Pearson was out in Braunstone Gate and someone asked him why he left and he said "because the board are w***ers". Not sure why he would still be in Leicester unless he still lived here or came down for what ever reason. Although it could be complete bullshit part of me believes it. Pearson didn't live here, so far as I know. He commuted. I'd say he's as likely to have been "out in Braunstone Gate" as I am to be parading down Charles Street in the nude.
The Doctor Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 Well this news comes as no surprise, still very disappointing though, NP deserved far better treatment from the club. Most peoples anger is directed at Top (and rightly so) but i'm also pissed off with Mandaric. He's always banging on about his managers being men of their word, men of integrity etc then he goes and shits on Pearson from a great height. I understand he was desperate to get investment into the club, but he should have stood his ground and backed Nigel. good old mandaric. How can a man who's been in football as long as he has not see that a stable team with little drama stands a good chance of getting up and that a premiership team is worth more than a championship team. Surely it would have been better for his bank balance (probably the first thing he considered come the takeover offer) to make one loss this year for us to get up and sell us on for more than he did?
lcfc_jme Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 Pearson was a right useless cvnt. I mean, how dare he get a completely mediocre squad so close to a playoff final only to see it lose out in a penalty-shoot-out lottery away from home in a different country. What a fvcking willy puller. I hope he is fvcking ashamed of himself.
HonradaRaposa Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 good old mandaric. How can a man who's been in football as long as he has not see that a stable team with little drama stands a good chance of getting up and that a premiership team is worth more than a championship team. Surely it would have been better for his bank balance (probably the first thing he considered come the takeover offer) to make one loss this year for us to get up and sell us on for more than he did? Mandaric didn't care after Cardiff, his exit strategy started to unfold in January when he gave no significant funds to Pearson. He was always going to sell even if we went up he had no money left to play with, he doesn't care. The new owners were perfectly entitled to bring in their own man.
The Doctor Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 Mandaric didn't care after Cardiff, his exit strategy started to unfold in January when he gave no significant funds to Pearson. He was always going to sell even if we went up he had no money left to play with, he doesn't care. The new owners were perfectly entitled to bring in their own man. i'm not saying they weren't, i'm saying mandaric made a great misjudgement by chucking pearson out when there is very little doubt given another season he'd have got us up (and but for a couple of dodgy penalty desisions and some internal racism probably would have got us up last season) since a stable premier league club (i.e. one with a settled squad and manager) would be considerably more valuble than we were going into this takeover. Therefore it probably would have been in mandaric's best interests financially to keep the team the way it was and give pearson one more season in which to get us up and then sell on. Yes we could have failed this season with pearson and mandaric would have made back less through a sale but the potential benefits surely outweighted the risks.
HonradaRaposa Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 i'm not saying they weren't, i'm saying mandaric made a great misjudgement by chucking pearson out when there is very little doubt given another season he'd have got us up (and but for a couple of dodgy penalty desisions and some internal racism probably would have got us up last season) since a stable premier league club (i.e. one with a settled squad and manager) would be considerably more valuble than we were going into this takeover. Therefore it probably would have been in mandaric's best interests financially to keep the team the way it was and give pearson one more season in which to get us up and then sell on. Yes we could have failed this season with pearson and mandaric would have made back less through a sale but the potential benefits surely outweighted the risks. You are missing the point totally. Mandaric didn't care, Pearson was always going because the new owners wanted their own man in place. Mandaric didn't make a misjudgement he did what he had to do to ensure he sold us. Like I said he didn't care one bit what happened to Pearson or us.
The Doctor Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 You are missing the point totally. Mandaric didn't care, Pearson was always going because the new owners wanted their own man in place. Mandaric didn't make a misjudgement he did what he had to do to ensure he sold us. Like I said he didn't care one bit what happened to Pearson or us. No he didn't care about us. What he would care about is the contents of his bank account. Those contents would have greatly swelled if he'd sold a premier league team. Pearson was putting together a bargin bucket team more than capable of promotion. lowish expenditure + high Income = large amounts of Profit. That high income would have come from the sale of a top level club. With Pearson the odds were very much in our favour of reaching the top table. It's simple maths & logic.
HonradaRaposa Posted 2 September 2010 Posted 2 September 2010 No he didn't care about us. What he would care about is the contents of his bank account. Those contents would have greatly swelled if he'd sold a premier league team. Pearson was putting together a bargin bucket team more than capable of promotion. lowish expenditure + high Income = large amounts of Profit. That high income would have come from the sale of a top level club. With Pearson the odds were very much in our favour of reaching the top table. It's simple maths & logic. Pearson proved he wasn't the man to take us up by his failure against Cardiff. Admittedly he had one hand tied behind his back from January but he stil bottled it. Even if Pearson had taken us up Mandaric was bailing out and Pearson was getting dumped.
Joe. Posted 2 September 2010 Author Posted 2 September 2010 No he didn't care about us. What he would care about is the contents of his bank account. Those contents would have greatly swelled if he'd sold a premier league team. Pearson was putting together a bargin bucket team more than capable of promotion. lowish expenditure + high Income = large amounts of Profit. That high income would have come from the sale of a top level club. With Pearson the odds were very much in our favour of reaching the top table. It's simple maths & logic. But the investors wouldn't have invested if Pearson was still there, that's the point. Mandaric has done well from this deal because they bought at a decent price at the right time.
CosbehFox Posted 3 September 2010 Posted 3 September 2010 Pearson proved he wasn't the man to take us up by his failure against Cardiff. Admittedly he had one hand tied behind his back from January but he stil bottled it. Even if Pearson had taken us up Mandaric was bailing out and Pearson was getting dumped. You seem to ignore the Brown issue on the eve of the first leg. Pearson didn't bottle it either, we got to a situation of sticking five penalties which needed sticking in the onion bag
HonradaRaposa Posted 3 September 2010 Posted 3 September 2010 You seem to ignore the Brown issue on the eve of the first leg. Pearson didn't bottle it either, we got to a situation of sticking five penalties which needed sticking in the onion bag Wayne Brown, Wayne fookin Brown the man who put a cross field free kick 30 yards behind Lloyd Dyer and out of play at Hillsborough, that Wayne Brown Please, are you really suggesting he would have made any difference? We surrendered the initiative at home and spent the second leg chasing the tie when we should have been in control of it.
The Doctor Posted 3 September 2010 Posted 3 September 2010 Wayne Brown, Wayne fookin Brown the man who put a cross field free kick 30 yards behind Lloyd Dyer and out of play at Hillsborough, that Wayne Brown Please, are you really suggesting he would have made any difference? We surrendered the initiative at home and spent the second leg chasing the tie when we should have been in control of it. tbh i think him saying that he wanted vaughan, dyer, powell + others out the country (as he effectively did by admiting to voting bnp) probably unsettled the squad quite a bit. It's nothing to with the fact he didn't play, is the reasons as to why he didn't play that affected the tie.
Guest Basildon Fox Posted 3 September 2010 Posted 3 September 2010 Wayne Brown, Wayne fookin Brown the man who put a cross field free kick 30 yards behind Lloyd Dyer and out of play at Hillsborough, that Wayne Brown Please, are you really suggesting he would have made any difference? We surrendered the initiative at home and spent the second leg chasing the tie when we should have been in control of it. Not true. We were 3-2 up on aggregate early in the second half in the 2nd leg. Don't let this put you off having a rant though even if you are talking bollocks.
HonradaRaposa Posted 3 September 2010 Posted 3 September 2010 Not true. We were 3-2 up on aggregate early in the second half in the 2nd leg. Don't let this put you off having a rant though even if you are talking bollocks. Good grief. You've just proved my point.
Guest Basildon Fox Posted 3 September 2010 Posted 3 September 2010 Good grief. You've just proved my point. Proved what point exactly you silly sod? You quite clearly stated we chased the game all second leg which is not true. The only point you have proven is that you are an argumentative idiot, somebody unlikely to know their arse from their elbow!!
HonradaRaposa Posted 3 September 2010 Posted 3 September 2010 Proved what point exactly you silly sod? You quite clearly stated we chased the game all second leg which is not true. The only point you have proven is that you are an argumentative idiot, somebody unlikely to know their arse from their elbow!! Reverting to name calling The point being, had Pearson actually attacked, as he had to do in Cardiff, we'd have coasted in to the final. But he didn't he bottled it and failed.
Houdini Logic Posted 3 September 2010 Posted 3 September 2010 The point being, had Pearson actually attacked, as he had to do in Cardiff, we'd have coasted in to the final. But he didn't he bottled it and failed. Have you ever thought that maybe the players 'bottled it' under the pressure of the occasion and it's not actually Pearson's fault? I'll assume you've never played football
HonradaRaposa Posted 3 September 2010 Posted 3 September 2010 Have you ever thought that maybe the players 'bottled it' under the pressure of the occasion and it's not actually Pearson's fault? I'll assume you've never played football Well yes, Matty Fryatt bottled it when he was presented with his big chance, natural finisher my arse. Sadly Pearson set the players that day and the formation and it was one that they were destined to fail with. Dave Jones must have wet himself when he saw how we lined up.
hairy Posted 3 September 2010 Posted 3 September 2010 Well yes, Matty Fryatt bottled it when he was presented with his big chance, natural finisher my arse. Sadly Pearson set the players that day and the formation and it was one that they were destined to fail with. Dave Jones must have wet himself when he saw how we lined up. Funny that. I remember being ahead and on the way to the final at one point.
HonradaRaposa Posted 3 September 2010 Posted 3 September 2010 Funny that. I remember being ahead and on the way to the final at one point. Indeed we were, but had Pearson not fooked around in the first leg we'd have been there easily as all the momentum would have been with us. Still Pearson is ripping this league apart with Hull
Houdini Logic Posted 3 September 2010 Posted 3 September 2010 Well yes, Matty Fryatt bottled it when he was presented with his big chance, natural finisher my arse. Sadly Pearson set the players that day and the formation and it was one that they were destined to fail with. Dave Jones must have wet himself when he saw how we lined up. Which was the team and formation that got us into the playoff spot in the first place. Waggy up front - dyer and gallagher getting forward. Fryatt brought on (before they even scored if I remember correctly). Blaming Pearson is quite frankly ludicrous
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.