Bettsj2 Posted 3 October 2012 Posted 3 October 2012 Sousa was pally with the owners so it doesn't take einstein to work out that something was out of the norm. Sousa said himself at the time of the takeover, he didnt know who they were or who to talk to. Hardly pally.
marty78 Posted 3 October 2012 Posted 3 October 2012 Sousa was pally with the owners so it doesn't take einstein to work out that something was out of the norm. Sorry pal but you are no Einstein. You may be a Norm though and anyone twat can put two and two together and get what suits them.
Happy Fox Posted 3 October 2012 Posted 3 October 2012 Sorry pal but you are no Einstein. You may be a Norm though and anyone twat can put two and two together and get what suits them. Coincidence that Sousa was at the playoff semi final, coincidence that he and the Thais are best buddies, coincidence that the Thais wanted a name manager so NP left as his position was untenable imo because of the situation at the time why are you defending the Thais actions or Mandy's for that matter?
flowwolf Posted 3 October 2012 Posted 3 October 2012 Name anyone that would be better. The man got Spurs into the top 4 of the Premiership. I think getting rid of NP would be a serious lack of judgement from Top & co. but why piss off someone who imo would be more than an adequate replacement. People seem to be hung up on bullshit that he will come in and bankrupt the club like at Portsmouth. People need to get their head around the fact that he only spent the budget he was given there and it was the financial bods who buggered it up. Because he is nothing but a spiv who shows no loyalty to any club he has managed , just ask the Portsmouth fans what they think of him. But better still he is a tax cheat that got away with it this time but they are on to him and it's only a matter of time before he gets done properly. With all respect you need to get your head around the fact that he was sacked from Spurs after getting them up to fourth in the table , now ask yourself why ?
marty78 Posted 3 October 2012 Posted 3 October 2012 Coincidence that Sousa was at the playoff semi final, coincidence that he and the Thais are best buddies, coincidence that the Thais wanted a name manager so NP left as his position was untenable imo because of the situation at the time why are you defending the Thais actions or Mandy's for that matter? Coincidence? I don't know but can you prove otherwise? I'm not defending Mandaric or even the new owners but you, and others like you, should defend your claims or stop making them. Your claim, your burden of proof. Otherwise I'll just say your talking shit. You should work for The Mail.
Happy Fox Posted 3 October 2012 Posted 3 October 2012 Coincidence? I don't know but can you prove otherwise? I'm not defending Mandaric or even the new owners but you, and others like you, should defend your claims or stop making them. Your claim, your burden of proof. Otherwise I'll just say your talking shit. Fair enough the whole affair at the time seemed a bit dodgy and when the revelations that Sousa was in fact acting as an adviser to the Thais or pally it seemed a bit strange, but anyway that is in the past, the owners have probably learnt their lessons or you would hope they have.
marty78 Posted 3 October 2012 Posted 3 October 2012 Fair enough the whole affair at the time seemed a bit dodgy and when the revelations that Sousa was in fact acting as an adviser to the Thais or pally it seemed a bit strange, but anyway that is in the past, the owners have probably learnt their lessons or you would hope they have. If they were that 'pally' why did they sack him so quickly? Shit pals eh.
Grey Fox Posted 3 October 2012 Posted 3 October 2012 The Thai's would be absolute fools to mess with the winning formula that we have now. Their aim is the Premier League, replacing Pearson while he is doing well would damage achieving their aim as quickly as possible. They may have thought about it when we lost the first 3 away games, but that surely would be over ridden by the latest string of wins? For me the story lacked credibility in the first place, but as soon as the name Dowie was mentioned, what little it did have quickly went out of the window. Does anyone seriously think the owners would risk letting Pearson go without Redknapp already having agreed to take over? Please! That line clearly shows that most probably the entire story is a work of pure fiction.
Ozwin Posted 3 October 2012 Posted 3 October 2012 I thought it was generally accepted that the new owners wanted Sousa in so Mandaric did it to get the deal moving? Something like that anyway.
m00nie Posted 3 October 2012 Posted 3 October 2012 They already forced Pearson out and had to recall him to get the fans back on side, they'd have to literally be retarded to do it again. why would NP come back if it was them that forced him out...
Grey Fox Posted 3 October 2012 Posted 3 October 2012 I thought it was generally accepted that the new owners wanted Sousa in so Mandaric did it to get the deal moving? Something like that anyway. No one really knows for sure. I find it strange that if they did indeed force Pearson out, that he would even consider coming back to work for them? He has a reputation for being a man of principle. That being the case, I wouldn't expect him to want to work for someone he felt had forced him out in the past? A fall out with Hoos was also tagged as a possible reason, so who knows, that may have been the case and the Thai's had nothing to do with it?
Kitchandro Posted 3 October 2012 Posted 3 October 2012 I thought it was generally accepted that the new owners wanted Sousa in so Mandaric did it to get the deal moving? Something like that anyway. It's a theory I think people shouldn't be so quick to rubbish, nor should we assume it definitely was the case. There's no proof, but there were plenty of rumours suggesting it. We may never know whether it was true or not, it's certainly the kind of thing I'd expect from Mandy and the Thais, but it's not a fact and there isn't evidence for it to be 'generally accepted'.
Kitchandro Posted 3 October 2012 Posted 3 October 2012 No one really knows for sure. I find it strange that if they did indeed force Pearson out, that he would even consider coming back to work for them? He has a reputation for being a man of principle. That being the case, I wouldn't expect him to want to work for someone he felt had forced him out in the past? A fall out with Hoos was also tagged as a possible reason, so who knows, that may have been the case and the Thai's had nothing to do with it? That's concievable. Whatever the reasons I blame Mandaric, he had the power to keep him, whether that was by sacking Hoos, or just generally supporting him and showing loyalty. It's clear to me Mandaric was not fully behind him and may have been speaking to Sousa. I don't know whether the Thais had something to do with it but even if they did, it's possible Nigel didn't know about it.
Ozwin Posted 4 October 2012 Posted 4 October 2012 Oh yeah, 100% Mandaric was behind it all. I like to think Pearson genuinely loves the club and wanted to finish what he had started, maybe he put aside any differences/doubts to achieve his goals? I agree that he seems a man of principal though, I don't think he's naive enough to come back into a job with owners who binned him a year before, but who knows. Either way I'm behind him.
Guest Basildon Fox Posted 4 October 2012 Posted 4 October 2012 Because he is nothing but a spiv who shows no loyalty to any club he has managed , just ask the Portsmouth fans what they think of him. But better still he is a tax cheat that got away with it this time but they are on to him and it's only a matter of time before he gets done properly. With all respect you need to get your head around the fact that he was sacked from Spurs after getting them up to fourth in the table , now ask yourself why ? Firstly. How long was he at both West Ham and Spurs? He left Portsmouth for the chance to manage a far bigger team. What would you have done in his position? Secondly he was found not guilty to the tax evasion charge therefore he is not a tax cheat. I imagine he was fired by Spurs for 2 reasons, the speculation of the England job which he quite clearly wanted and refused to rule himself out of becomming England manager. Also they fell away from the Manchester clubs during the last 3rd of the season and Levy blamed his management despite the fact he had done so well to get them into the position in the first place. This has so many similarities to when Mad Mandy wanted to put Colin willy puller in charge. Be careful what you wish for as the alternative could well be a lot worse...
SOCCERROO FOX Posted 4 October 2012 Posted 4 October 2012 How the fook did this ludacris thread make it to 8 pages???
Jace Posted 4 October 2012 Posted 4 October 2012 Pearson won't quit regardless, why quit and get nothing when if it was true and they wanted rid they would have to give him a good payoff anyway
Hack Posted 4 October 2012 Posted 4 October 2012 but football has re-defined the word "ridiculous"- I am genuinely troubled by this. Assuming there is anything behind the clamour (and I have to say that this is becoming rather insistent now with a number of rumours swirling about and much media comment) by what insane logic would NP have been brought back to the club last year (at no small cost in compensation terms) if all along they want a high profile manager . And if they want a high profile manager why would Dowie be mentioned? Prior to outing a manager in Mandaric's tenure the club used to leak the names of horrors of the like of Peter Reid , Dowie & co so that whoever was then appointed came as a relief to the fans. And MM was canny enough to try to keep the fans' support in most things. I hope this is not a tactic the Thais have learned from him. We all know that the papers print a load of rubbish but I cannot accept that this story is just made up and has not been fed to the papers by someone within the club or associated with the owners which suggests that something may be about to happen Couldn't it be, that this story had some validity when the team was 1win 3 loses. Which makes the story based on very old news. Maybe the owners were talking to Harry and were concerned about the player, manager relationships (ie Mills, Beckford, Danns etc) and the early results? But anything else doesn't make sense. This story is regergitated crap based on stuff early on. The Owners would of course be happy with the clubs results in the last month. Also, with the work Nigel hasone to reduce the cost of the club and the average cost of the new members of the team. For Nigel to have the team second on the table with high cost players off the books, proves his theory and tactics do work. He is a much lower cost manager than a Harry Redknapp would be. The sytle of football being presented is also not only winning football but an attacking sytle winning the supporters over with. I would not be worried about Nigel getting the sack, unless he has a poor relationship with them and or the senior management..
Thracian Posted 4 October 2012 Posted 4 October 2012 Not one word from the Thais .... From all I've read so far they come out of this as shallow, cowardly, disloyal and unsupportive. There never was any sort of crisis this season, not even when we had some bad results, as was plain to see for anyone not looking through jaundiced eyes. And Pearson's handling of Mills, Beckford and Danns was admirable. Pearson's matchday approach had changed markedly, if not completely, and we were playing the best and most entertaining football seen from a City team in years. Even the manner of such defeats we suffered was affected by things no manager could have done anything about - like goals being unfairly disallowed or otherwise in-form strikers missing from a few feet or having goalkeeper's bring off unlikely saves. There was never one occasion his season when we went out on the pitch - home or away - and didn't play with pace, style and commitment and when we didn't threaten to tear the opposition to shreds at times. And did the Thais put their metaphoric arms around Pearson's shoulders and say "Don't worry - you're on the right track now and the results will come with a bit of patience....? No their money mattered more to them than their consciences. And so they sneaked out into the night, held or sanctioned their secret meetings and, like a slimy cesspit of turncoat politicians, they planned to stab their already wounded manager in the back even as he lay there all-but helpless on the battlefield. And so he would have been faithlessly left to his indignity but for the fortitude, determination and sheer resolve of his players who kept believing in what they were doing and who finally found the good fortune to go with all that their sometimes fabulous football deserved. And do the Thais even now have the honestly, humility and decency to say "sorry, we were wrong," and to beg for forgiveness? No, they prefer to sit silently in their offices - presumably seething at their treachery being exposed and their manager making a mug of them, while pretending that nothing amiss has taken place. And does it matter? Well, I wonder. Will Pearson go on to give us promotion, rise above it all and, like the man he undoubtedly is, show the loyalty to his players that they deserve should their journey take them into the Premiership. Or will he vengefully move on and eventually take some of those players with him while leaving our once seemingly respectable club suffering the further humility of another unnecessary and self-imposed implosion. Part of me would love to think the Thais could sell out and crawl off home to their duty free shops and scrub the floors in their shame for a while. But it won't happen - certainly not the floor scrubbing - and even if it did we'd doubtless get someone else of the same ilk or another Mandaric to sully the corridors of our once fine and seemingly respectable club. And, being fair, the Thais haven't been all bad for our club, and certainly not in spirit. They've set some standards and tried, if not always successfully, to follow up on their promises. But I suppose the financial achievers of this world will always say that being professionally ruthless is what allows them to park their gleaming limousines around their business empires - or outside our ground - and proclaim "See, we're better than you". But whenever I've looked at such symbols of privilege I've always wondered "who's had to be trodden on to put that there." And they sure need to apologise for treading on Pearson. He simply didn't deserve it. I hope they do apologise and I also hope it's accepted wholeheartedly so that both parties can learn something from what has happened. Pearson's made mistakes so it really shouldn't be hard for him to accept regret for the mistakes of others. And theThais should learn something about being straightforward and about not being too hasty in making judgements instead of seeing what can be done first from within. they might end up better respected - as well as more successful - in the end.
dynamark Posted 4 October 2012 Posted 4 October 2012 Reminds me of Citizen Smith -come the revolution!
shade Posted 4 October 2012 Posted 4 October 2012 has anyone stopped to think that maybe they will address the speculation in top's bristol programme article ?
davieG Posted 4 October 2012 Posted 4 October 2012 Talksport - If you can tolerate listening to Keys and Gray for a few minutes there is something about Pearson/Redknapp on at 11.30am. according to this from Bentleys Probably more regurgitated bollocks
ealingfox Posted 4 October 2012 Posted 4 October 2012 Maybe the Thais just haven't wanted to dignify the bullshit with a response. No issue, no need to act on issue. If they and Pearson are getting along just wonderful and they both know it, why would there be any need to make a statement about it?
Kitchandro Posted 4 October 2012 Posted 4 October 2012 Firstly. How long was he at both West Ham and Spurs? He left Portsmouth for the chance to manage a far bigger team. What would you have done in his position? Secondly he was found not guilty to the tax evasion charge therefore he is not a tax cheat. I imagine he was fired by Spurs for 2 reasons, the speculation of the England job which he quite clearly wanted and refused to rule himself out of becomming England manager. Also they fell away from the Manchester clubs during the last 3rd of the season and Levy blamed his management despite the fact he had done so well to get them into the position in the first place. This has so many similarities to when Mad Mandy wanted to put Colin willy puller in charge. Be careful what you wish for as the alternative could well be a lot worse... You can keep telling yourself that if you like. Also keep telling yourself John Terry isn't a racist and OJ Simpson isnt a murderer.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.