Trust in our owners

[MooseBreath]

Not really sure where to start with this.

Firstly, there is no smoke without fire. I am pretty confident that Redknapp was sounded out about the job based on some things I've heard. I can't and won't elaborate further, so if you don't agree, that's fine.

Secondly, I agree that sounding out Redknapp if you were thinking of ditching Pearson is a sound approach from a business perspective. The last thing anyone wants is for us to waste 4 or 5 games with a caretaker.

Thirdly, you are the one creating a hypothetical scenario, saying "what if we lost 4 or 5 on the bounce?"

As I've repeatedly stated, and as is made clear to anybody who has any interest in engaging in the content of my post, what I'm angry about here is the fact that anybody, and especially the

Thais, could have thought that firing Pearson was going to be at all useful when we were playing some really good football.

Oh, and I absolutely would not be moaning if we took 6 points every 5 games playing inthe manner we had done in those first five games. I'd far rather see us play enterprising football and lose unluckily than stodgy football and bore our way to victory (survival permitting).

But they didn't sack him, so why are you angry? Maybe they spoke to Redknapp as a back up plan in case things got worse. Things didn't get worse so they didn't sack Pearson. It's completely irrational to be angry at the owners for having the good sense to have a plan b in mind in case things went wrong.

[davieG]

So the justification by some on here for them looking for a new manager, if they did is that we had a few bad results?

So everytime Pearson gets a few bad results we can expect that the the owners are out and about looking for a replacement manager.

Where's the trust in that approach?

We are asked to trust the owners so why don't they show trust in and have faith in the Manager, the appointment they made.

[Kitchandro]

thought he said he heard it form someone at the club who had been reliable before.. thats like bert, hes had reliable information before, but dont mean everything is fact..

I didn't say it was a fact, but given everything we've heard my gut feeling swings towards them having spoken to Redknapp. I can't prove this but they can't prove they haven't either.

[Kitchandro]

Of course, even if we won the league this season, cut the ticket prices and made £20m profit for each of the next five years, there would still be some here who will never accept the idea of "gooks" in charge of the club. Such dinosaurs should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

Maybe with some people that is he case. But that doesn't mean up until now they've not deserved some criticism.

Credit where credit's due, they've done some good things, but in general they've been a disappointment.

And if we do go up this season, it will still be after 2 seasons of going backwards when they were in charge.

[MooseBreath]

So the justification by some on here for them looking for a new manager, if they did is that we had a few bad results?

So everytime Pearson gets a few bad results we can expect that the the owners are out and about looking for a replacement manager.

Where's the trust in that approach?

We are asked to trust the owners so why don't they show trust in and have faith in the Manager, the appointment they made.

Yes I think part of being a responsible owner is planning for different scenarios. Exactly the same as the manager does with players, and exactly the same as happens in every good business in the world.

[Dr The Singh]

Trust no-one!!

[davieG]

Yes I think part of being a responsible owner is planning for different scenarios. Exactly the same as the manager does with players, and exactly the same as happens in every good business in the world.

So as i say we lose a few games and we can all expect a new manager, what a way to run a football club, utter madness how can that even be a credible way to act.

[Mark_w]

Aren't they the ones who brought Pearson back to the club? Given the extreme pro-Pearson stance of most of your posts I'm surprised you can't bring yourself to give credit for that.

After two seasons of heavy losses, the Thais could easily have cut and run. Instead they stuck with the manager, gave him a decent transfer budget (one that most managers in the league would kill for) and let him sign the players he wanted. After some turbulent teething troubles, the results of that policy are now appearing to bear fruit.

I am absolutely delighted they brought Pearson back. Delighted, and slightly surprised, they stuck with him at the end of last season. But there are more important things than who manages the club, when I'm sure that we can support the wages we're paying, and the transfer fee's we are paying then the owners will have my full backing. Until then, whilst I'm delighted with what's going on, on the pitch, I'm not going to be 100% confident about what's going on off it.

Of course, even if we won the league this season, cut the ticket prices and made £20m profit for each of the next five years, there would still be some here who will never accept the idea of "gooks" in charge of the club. Such dinosaurs should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

I hope that wasn't aimed at me. Just because I'm not willing to put 100% faith in a group of people I've never met, to run the football club I support, doesn't mean I or anyone else who thinks in the same way is a racist. I'd feel this way about any owner, and I don't dislike the Thai owners, but I'll only 'trust' them when they've given me a reason to do so. I've not said anything to suggest I dislike them because of their ethnicity, nor am I aware of any poster on here who has, yes anyone who thinks like that should be treated with the contempt they deserve, but not everyone who doesn't completely trust the owners is a racist and I'd think very carefully about making accusations like that if I were you.

[Kitchandro]

But they didn't sack him, so why are you angry? Maybe they spoke to Redknapp as a back up plan in case things got worse. Things didn't get worse so they didn't sack Pearson. It's completely irrational to be angry at the owners for having the good sense to have a plan b in mind in case things went wrong.

But they shouldn't be doing that. We're not in danger of relegation so there shouldn't have been any panic. If they did speak to Redknapp, it's ended up getting out in the press and damaged the relationship between manager and owners (no matter what Pearson says in public).

It's not just a harmless back up plan, it's a display of poor faith and people showing that they don't have confidence in their own employee that they hired.

If it was halfway through the season and we were playing crap and were way down the table with a big gap between us and the play-offs, maybe you could understand them making a back up plan. But it was about 5 games in and 4 games later, it shows that if they did speak to Redknapp, it was incredibly rash and disrespectful.

[Dr The Singh]

Rednapp has denied speaking about the managers job so what's the problem???

[MooseBreath]

So as i say we lose a few games and we can all expect a new manager, what a way to run a football club, utter madness how can that even be a credible way to act.

No, we lost a few games and we still have Pearson, so I don't know where you get that idea from. You've just made that criteria up. It is a total fabrication with no back up whatsoever, and then you have applied it to the owners as if it is a nailed on guarantee that that is how they will act.

I didn't have you down as a xenophobe, Mr g, but you're making me wonder

[ealingfox]

I trust them so much I'm going to buy shares in King Power.

[shearfox]

I didn't say it was a fact, but given everything we've heard my gut feeling swings towards them having spoken to Redknapp. I can't prove this but they can't prove they haven't either.

They can't prove they haven't but it is a bit difficult to prove it didn't happen isn't it? It's not something you can prove didn't happen. All they can do is say it didn't happen, and Redknapp completely denied it.

"Given the recent unwarranted and inaccurate speculation in relation to our manager, we wish to set the record straight in the most unequivocal manner.

"Nigel has and continues to retain our total support in helping us to deliver our stated long-term aim of achieving footballing success."

This statement here is them saying nothing has happened...

[davieG]

Rednapp has denied speaking about the managers job so what's the problem???

It must be because according to you know who their can be only one reason for not trusting our owners and that's because, to use his words they're 'gooks'.

Yet again he throws the racist card into the debate without any justifiable reason, maybe it's because that's how he sees them.

[TrentFox]

Pearson's agent said he had it on good authority that they'd spoken with him, they were asked about it and they didn't deny it, even in the statement they didn't flat out deny they hadn't spoken with him.

People like moosebreath are trying to say they would have been right to do so, which I don't agree with.

No offence K, but you just can't have it both ways ! http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/topic/83973-lets-have-a-statement-from-the-thais-about-pearsons-job-being-safe/page__st__180#entry2370480

[davieG]

No, we lost a few games and we still have Pearson, so I don't know where you get that idea from. You've just made that criteria up. It is a total fabrication with no back up whatsoever, and then you have applied it to the owners as if it is a nailed on guarantee that that is how they will act.

I didn't have you down as a xenophobe, Mr g, but you're making me wonder

I didn't make it up you said they where justified in looking for new manager because of the results thus implying that this is normal business practice therefore the conclusion I came to from your views was that we can expect them to be looking for a new manager when ever we have a few bad results.

Where the hell did this xenophobe come in are you accessory in disguise where you have to throw it in when you're struggling to make your point.

[Kitchandro]

They can't prove they haven't but it is a bit difficult to prove it didn't happen isn't it? It's not something you can prove didn't happen. All they can do is say it didn't happen, and Redknapp completely denied it.

True. But with the club declining to comment the first time they were asked, and Pearson being unsure of what was going on, there are reasons to be skeptical.

I'm not asking them to prove it, I just don't 100% believe them.

No offence K, but you just can't have it both ways ! http://www.foxestalk...80#entry2370480

Again, like yesterday I don't see your point

[Mark_w]

Anyone who doesn't love the owners is a racist. No other argument is valid, they're foreign so even if you have genuine concerns about the way they run the football club, any opposition makes you a racist. Regardless of the fact that no one has mentioned anything to do with their ethnicity. Nope, all posters who love the owners have the moral high ground and all who are unsure about their intentions with regards to the club can have no reason for doing so other than being knuckle dragging racists.

Apparently.

[Dr The Singh]

It must be because according to you know who their can be only one reason for not trusting our owners and that's because, to use his words they're 'gooks'.

Yet again he throws the racist card into the debate without any justifiable reason, maybe it's because that's how he sees them.

What's Ultra said now, he really needs to pull up his trousers and stop showing his skiddy pants and get a proper job and life!!

Race has nothing to do with trust, infact history will probably paint the west as probably a least trusting race of people!!

[TrentFox]

True. But with the club declining to comment the first time they were asked, and Pearson being unsure of what was going on, there are reasons to be skeptical.

I'm not asking them to prove it, I just don't 100% believe them.

Again, like yesterday I don't see your point

It's not complicated. Yesterday you said this:- "I don't generally think people have a problem with having someone lined up if the current manager isn't doing well, it's just good business."

And today you say this :- "People like moosebreath are trying to say they would have been right to do so, which I don't agree with."

Those two statements seem diametrically opposite to me. Or is it me not seeing your point, now ?

[Deucalion]

I trust the owners to some extent.

I believe they genuinely want success for this football club and have tied themselves too closely to the club to walk away easily. It is a concern that they are borrowing money to finance success but this is preferable to countless board members in the past who have had no ambition what so ever or have fleeced the club to keep themselves in Bentleys.

I have trusted their judgement over sacking Sousa and appointing Sven and Pearson. I thought Sven was sacked a little too early at the time but as time has gone on, Sven's mistakes have become more and more apparent.

After our poor finish last season and a less than impressive start this season, I was beginning to question Pearson as manager. If the owners were looking at paying off Pearson's £1 million a year contract and getting the most high profile manager in England as replacement, then I find it hard to criticise them for this.

They have also had the good judgement to put the Redknapp thing to bed and stick with Pearson as in recent weeks, good performances have been translated into results.

All in all, I think they are the BEST owners the club has ever had in my time watching the club.

[shearfox]

I trust the owners to some extent.

I believe they genuinely want success for this football club and have tied themselves too closely to the club to walk away easily. It is a concern that they are borrowing money to finance success but this is preferable to countless board members in the past who have had no ambition what so ever or have fleeced the club to keep them in Bentleys.

I have trusted their judgement over sacking Sousa and appointing Sven and Pearson. I thought Sven was sacked a little too early at the time but as time has gone on, Sven's mistakes have become more and more apparent.

After our poor finish last season and a less than impressive start this season, I was beginning to question Pearson as manager. If the owners were looking at paying off Pearson's £1 million a year contract and getting the most high profile manager in England as replacement, then I find it hard to criticise them for this.

They have also had the good judgement to put the Redknapp thing to bed and stick with Pearson as in recent weeks, good performances have been translated into results.

All in all, I think they are the BEST owners the club has ever had in my time watching the club.

Certainly agree with you there.

[Kitchandro]

It's not complicated. Yesterday you said this:- "I don't generally think people have a problem with having someone lined up if the current manager isn't doing well, it's just good business."

And today you say this :- "People like moosebreath are trying to say they would have been right to do so, which I don't agree with."

Those two statements seem diametrically opposite to me. Or is it me not seeing your point, now ?

As I said yesterday, they're different situations, Sven was doing badly, Pearson wasn't.

Pearson was less games into the season, the team was playing better and showing promise (unlike Sven's team 12 months ago) and it was likely that things wouln't look so bad in a couple of games, or so it proved.

I only think we shouldn't be lining up a replacement for Pearson because there is no good reason why he should be sacked. That was the case a few games ago and it's even more the case now.

[sphericalfox]

Total bumf. It's what they didn't say is what really matters....

[TrentFox]

As I said yesterday, they're different situations, Sven was doing badly, Pearson wasn't.

Pearson was less games into the season, the team was playing better and showing promise (unlike Sven's team 12 months ago) and it was likely that things wouln't look so bad in a couple of games, or so it proved.

I only think we shouldn't be lining up a replacement for Pearson because there is no good reason why he should be sacked. That was the case a few games ago and it's even more the case now.

Okay. I undersatnd what you're saying. I'm genuinely not looking to pick a fight here - indeed, I often find myself nodding in agreement with your posts - but NP wasn't doing well (according to many on here) after the Wolves defeat or the Burton debacle. I re-read some of the posts on those threads yesterday to see if I'd imagined it and there was some pretty vindictive stuff being directed his way. The jury was no longer out for many at that time. Anyway, yesterday's beer now. Let's raise the roof tomorrow and roar to the top of the pile !!