sick to death

[inckley fox]

There's a difference between what they say to each other behind closed doors though and what they say in press conferences isn't there? And anyway, of course promotion is the aim, what would you expect them to say?

The money that Nigel has spent, he has been allowed to spend on young players, who will increase in value, either staying with us for an extended period of time, or be sold at a profit. I think you are forgetting this.

Ok, let's compare with the other teams in this division. We have Hull, where Steve Bruce is doing a good job living in the house that PEARSON built. Then we have Watford, who have money, but also access to an unrivalled pool of players from all over the world. Then Cardiff, who are using an experienced squad built up over a long time with a proven Championship manager, but they still had to spend 10m+. And Palace, this is the first season they've challenged for a while, they have been fortunate in bringing through Zaha, and have built up a team over time, and Holloway has only just kept them in the chase compared to when he took over. We aren't far behind considering.

Firstly, your question was "'who says' promotion was the aim last season?" As I've pointed out, Pearson and the board both stated publicly that promotion was the aim. Even if Top gave Nige a pat on the back in a shadowy corridor and said 'I'll give you a bit longer than that pal', you can hardly label fans unrealistic for thinking that promotion was, indeed, the objective.

Secondly, I'm not as convinced as you are that these players will gain in value - though I'm unsure where your suggestion that I'm 'forgetting' the age and promise of his signings comes from. Up to now none of the players save for Knockaert, Drinkwater and (possibly) Wood will be worth significantly more than when we signed them. Vardy is definitely worth a lot less. Morgan is nearly 30 so it's not likely we'll be selling him until his career is on the decline, when we'll struggle to get our money back.

Thirdly, to say Bruce is living in the house that Pearson built is frankly absurd. Their last televised game was introduced with the commentator pointing out that he had only fielded three players who were at the club when he arrived. It would be equally inaccurate to say that Pearson is living in the house that Sven built because we've retained Schmeichel, Konchesky and Nugent.

The rest of your comparison was not especially convincing either.

McKay has had five more months than Pearson in the job, and spent roughly the same amount of money on players. They sit more than ten points above us. Yes McKay inherited a competent side, but then again Pearson inherited the most expensive side in the league, didn't he?

As for Watford, their manager - who has been at the club for eight months - has formed a successful side out of loan buys, something which eluded us in early 2008 and, under Sven, in the 2010-11 season.

Holloway, who has been in charge of Palace for a quarter of the time that Pearson has been at Leicester, has spent far less money than us (as did his predecessor), made a far greater profit and formed a side which are in superior form.

Ultimately Pearson will not be judged on the age of his signings any more than Levein was for bringing in 'young, hungry' players or O'Neill was for bringing in players who were mostly the wrong side of 26. The success of his second spell at the club depends on him winning promotion - and doing that against a set of managers who, up to now, are looking rather more up for the challenge than he is.

[Col city fan]

Firstly, your question was "'who says' promotion was the aim last season?" As I've pointed out, Pearson and the board both stated publicly that promotion was the aim. Even if Top gave Nige a pat on the back in a shadowy corridor and said 'I'll give you a bit longer than that pal', you can hardly label fans unrealistic for thinking that promotion was, indeed, the objective.

Secondly, I'm not as convinced as you are that these players will gain in value - though I'm unsure where your suggestion that I'm 'forgetting' the age and promise of his signings comes from. Up to now none of the players save for Knockaert, Drinkwater and (possibly) Wood will be worth significantly more than when we signed them. Vardy is definitely worth a lot less. Morgan is nearly 30 so it's not likely we'll be selling him until his career is on the decline, when we'll struggle to get our money back.

Thirdly, to say Bruce is living in the house that Pearson built is frankly absurd. Their last televised game was introduced with the commentator pointing out that he had only fielded three players who were at the club when he arrived. It would be equally inaccurate to say that Pearson is living in the house that Sven built because we've retained Schmeichel, Konchesky and Nugent.

The rest of your comparison was not especially convincing either.

McKay has had five more months than Pearson in the job, and spent roughly the same amount of money on players. They sit more than ten points above us. Yes McKay inherited a competent side, but then again Pearson inherited the most expensive side in the league, didn't he?

As for Watford, their manager - who has been at the club for eight months - has formed a successful side out of loan buys, something which eluded us in early 2008 and, under Sven, in the 2010-11 season.

Holloway, who has been in charge of Palace for a quarter of the time that Pearson has been at Leicester, has spent far less money than us (as did his predecessor), made a far greater profit and formed a side which are in superior form.

Ultimately Pearson will not be judged on the age of his signings any more than Levein was for bringing in 'young, hungry' players or O'Neill was for bringing in players who were mostly the wrong side of 26. The success of his second spell at the club depends on him winning promotion - and doing that against a set of managers who, up to now, are looking rather more up for the challenge than he is.

Again, I cannot argue with any of this.

What I would say finally though is that there's still an awful lot to play for.

Cardiff have lost their last two games for instance and are looking a little shaky.

IF (and it is if) we win the next two and the teams above us slip up, there's still all to play for.

The problem I've got (and have had all season) is that I just don't fancy us away from home. If we can't rectify this very soon and stop losing away it's gonna be close at the end.

We were talking about this last night in the pub. For example, we play Brighton away soon and we just cannot see us winning this game.

Even if it all comes down to the final game away at the Trees, I can't see us having to go there to pick up points.

THIS for me is where I'm not confident.

[Dan LCFC]

Totally agree.

I hate reading some of the comments on lcfc official on facebook as well.

That makes this place look like a site of experts. Literally get more people saying Pearson out than not.

[inckley fox]

I will say however, I feel there is an undertone within certain comments about Pearson and his apparent 'ignorance'. As if he doesn't see the issues because he doesn't want to see them, almost as if he wants to lose or do badly. Which of course on its own, is idiotic.

Idiotic? Really? It's quite reasonable to suggest that Pearson hasn't owned up to the frailties in his team.

Firstly there are the post-match comments in which he has repeatedly praised his side's efforts despite almost indisputable complacency on the pitch. He said 'there's nothing we can do about [falling so far behind Watford and Hull]' after the Peterborough game, which is ignoring the obvious fact that winning the game would have been a start.

My suspicion earlier in the season was that behind closed doors he came out with something rather different. And yet the players suggest otherwise; Konchesky turning on the fans after Huddersfield, James describing the Cup exit as 'a blessing in disguise' and one player saying that they felt like they had to win for Pearson because he rewarded them with days off after they played well. Yesterday Marshall stated that he was playing well and Konchesky said that it was all about 'getting a bit of banter going' again come Monday.

It's a stark contrast to Colin Hill, in early 96, nearly crying as he said 'we've really let the manager down today' after they only drew a home game under O'Neill.

Secondly there is the refusal to change line-up or formation after any win, regardless of how poor the performance has been.

Then there was the comment, when the window was still open that he'd 'settle' for the squad he'd got.

Last, but not least, he's ignored what certain players have to offer the team. He's refused to accept the obvious fact that Vardy isn't good enough, despite the fact that we have been four times more likely to score a goal with him off the pitch than with him on it since his last goal three months ago. At the same time he's allowed Schlupp to train with Manchester United, with a view to a permanent move, despite a series of competent displays and the fact that he's a) our only cover at left back, b) an option on the left flank where we've looked weak at times in recent weaks and c) an option up front where the likes of Vardy have repeatedly been allowed to under-perform.

So yes, I'd say he's ignored some fairly evident weaknesses in his side.

[davieG]

Yes, squad-building comes with time - as I argued again and again this time last year - but Pearson will not necessarily be the man to finish the job off. His remit when he returned was to win promotion at the first time of asking which - in spite of my arguments in his defence - he failed to do. With considerable financial backing, and an extra year to do what he was employed to do, he has put together a competent team and most commentators expected us to win the league, but we won't, and promotion - at the second time of asking - is starting to look less likely.

His goal, in his first reign, was to win promotion from League One and put together a promotion-challenging side in the Championship, which he did in two years. Nobody should downplay that achievement. But his task this time around shouldn't be confused with that one; this is a board which want success - and now. He was given extremely generous funds and eighteen months to secure promotion - and failure is not an option.

A play off finish in 12-13, without going up, does not deserve to be on that list of great successes you've provided above. The arrival of FFP could mean that there is a very short window of time in which a club can buy their way to success - if Pearson can't do it this time around, make no mistake, his second spell will be looked on as a failure.

]"The owners have never stated a time frame in any case for promotion; they have always committed their support and resources to the attainment of this vision."

Read more: http://www.thisislei...l#ixzz2MUJu5FPP

Follow us: @thisisleics on Twitter | thisisleicestershire on Facebook[/size]

[inckley fox]

Again, I cannot argue with any of this.

What I would say finally though is that there's still an awful lot to play for.

Cardiff have lost their last two games for instance and are looking a little shaky.

IF (and it is if) we win the next two and the teams above us slip up, there's still all to play for.

It's vital to remember this. The season could still turn out to be hugely successful, so long as we acknowledge our weaknesses and work out how to overcome them.

At times Pearson has seemed reluctant to do this, which is a huge shame because he is a good manager who is more than capable of dealing with our shortcomings, so long as he faces up to the fact that they exist and looks again at what he can do to get the better of them.

But it is still frustrating to see people refuse to acknowledge that he has made mistakes in recent months, or resist discussing what those mistakes might have been.

[ealingfox]

Firstly, your question was "'who says' promotion was the aim last season?" As I've pointed out, Pearson and the board both stated publicly that promotion was the aim. Even if Top gave Nige a pat on the back in a shadowy corridor and said 'I'll give you a bit longer than that pal', you can hardly label fans unrealistic for thinking that promotion was, indeed, the objective. - you suggested NP would be gone if he didn't achieve his 'remit' of being promoted at the first time of asking. He didn't, and he's still here.

Secondly, I'm not as convinced as you are that these players will gain in value - though I'm unsure where your suggestion that I'm 'forgetting' the age and promise of his signings comes from. Up to now none of the players save for Knockaert, Drinkwater and (possibly) Wood will be worth significantly more than when we signed them. Vardy is definitely worth a lot less. Morgan is nearly 30 so it's not likely we'll be selling him until his career is on the decline, when we'll struggle to get our money back. - Anyone that doesn't increase in value enough to be poached for a tidy profit will stay here long enough to justify the price we paid (ie Morgan)

Thirdly, to say Bruce is living in the house that Pearson built is frankly absurd. Their last televised game was introduced with the commentator pointing out that he had only fielded three players who were at the club when he arrived. It would be equally inaccurate to say that Pearson is living in the house that Sven built because we've retained Schmeichel, Konchesky and Nugent. - fair enough

The rest of your comparison was not especially convincing either.

McKay has had five more months than Pearson in the job, and spent roughly the same amount of money on players. They sit more than ten points above us. Yes McKay inherited a competent side, but then again Pearson inherited the most expensive side in the league, didn't he? - Cardiff have spent more than us. You made the disctinction between cost and competence yourself, so that last sentence means zero.

As for Watford, their manager - who has been at the club for eight months - has formed a successful side out of loan buys, something which eluded us in early 2008 and, under Sven, in the 2010-11 season. - no fault of Pearson's - and Sven didn't have access to the same pool of players as Zola did he?

Holloway, who has been in charge of Palace for a quarter of the time that Pearson has been at Leicester, has spent far less money than us (as did his predecessor), made a far greater profit and formed a side which are in superior form. - actually their form since Holloway started must be very similar to ours. Let's not forget a few weeks ago it looked like they'd drop out of the chase altogether.

Ultimately Pearson will not be judged on the age of his signings any more than Levein was for bringing in 'young, hungry' players or O'Neill was for bringing in players who were mostly the wrong side of 26. The success of his second spell at the club depends on him winning promotion - and doing that against a set of managers who, up to now, are looking rather more up for the challenge than he is.

So why does it have to be this season? What I find troubling is that so many fans expect promotion. I want promotion as much as anyone, but I don't expect it.

Also we have spent as much as we have, at least in part, due to the fact that teams know we have wealthy investors, so they up the price if we come calling. Same with City and Chelsea on a bigger scale.

[Dan LCFC]

I agree with inckley fox and I've been a big Pearson fan from the start.

[Arriba Los Zorros]

Pearson has done a top job in a relatively short time, we should be happy to be in the play-offs with a crack at auto's after the disastrous reigns of the managers that followed him at LCFC. Who else has got us into the playoffs in the last 10 years?

Its good to see that judging by this thread most fans haven't lost sight of this. It is just that the minority who want it all, and who want it now, are also that saddos that go on FoxesTalk for about 5 hours a day.

Where I would agree is that he needs to find a solution to our poor results against physical teams. That's what he's paid for, but its not as simple as the people saying BUY A DM, BUY A DESTROYER, WE NEED PRESENCE etc. You are highly naive if you think Pearson has not considered this and decided against if for a reason. I am no expert but I think the benefits of playing a holding player are outweighed by the negatives of unbalancing our team, giving up a lot of possession to the opposition, maybe having to sacrifice Knockaert from the starting line-up etc.

Just don't think its so easy to solve. The teams that play a lot of holding players often struggle to score and struggle to take control of games, thus playing on the break. This would radically alter our style of play which is what has brought us to the dance. Look at facts - we have won 12 out of 17 games at home by taking the game to the opposition. Compare this with Watford, whose home form is poor for a team at the top.

My rant is over, yes we are not the finished article, but we are a decent outfit and sacking Pearson would be a huge step backwards, just as it proved last time. City won't be making the same mistake twice.

[smudger63]

So why does it have to be this season? What I find troubling is that so many fans expect promotion. I want promotion as much as anyone, but I don't expect it.

Also we have spent as much as we have, at least in part, due to the fact that teams know we have wealthy investors, so they up the price if we come calling. Same with City and Chelsea on a bigger scale.

Well It has to be promotion this season for Pearson, because if it`s not, i think it is highly likely he will be having to look for work elsewhere before the next season gets underway.

[smudger63]

Pearson has done a top job in a relatively short time, we should be happy to be in the play-offs with a crack at auto's after the disastrous reigns of the managers that followed him at LCFC. Who else has got us into the playoffs in the last 10 years?

Its good to see that judging by this thread most fans haven't lost sight of this. It is just that the minority who want it all, and who want it now, are also that saddos that go on FoxesTalk for about 5 hours a day.

Where I would agree is that he needs to find a solution to our poor results against physical teams. That's what he's paid for, but its not as simple as the people saying BUY A DM, BUY A DESTROYER, WE NEED PRESENCE etc. You are highly naive if you think Pearson has not considered this and decided against if for a reason. I am no expert but I think the benefits of playing a holding player are outweighed by the negatives of unbalancing our team, giving up a lot of possession to the opposition, maybe having to sacrifice Knockaert from the starting line-up etc.

Just don't think its so easy to solve. The teams that play a lot of holding players often struggle to score and struggle to take control of games, thus playing on the break. This would radically alter our style of play which is what has brought us to the dance. Look at facts - we have won 12 out of 17 games at home by taking the game to the opposition. Compare this with Watford, whose home form is poor for a team at the top.

My rant is over, yes we are not the finished article, but we are a decent outfit and sacking Pearson would be a huge step backwards, just as it proved last time. City won't be making the same mistake twice.

Do you really think the owners will keep Pearson if we don`t get promoted?

[Bluetintedspecs]

Do you really think the owners will keep Pearson if we don`t get promoted?

Probably not but strongly feel they should!

[Arriba Los Zorros]

Probably not but strongly feel they should!

I agree - and I think if we get in the playoffs and don't go up then he will stay, provided he can provide a plan to imporve on our weaknesses this season. If we do finish outside the playoffs (unlikely) I think he will go.

[ian the fox]

I agree - and I think if we get in the playoffs and don't go up then he will stay, provided he can provide a plan to improve on our weaknesses this season. If we do finish outside the playoffs (unlikely) I think he will go.

two new central midfielders then , thats where the problems are

[Arriba Los Zorros]

two new central midfielders then , thats where the problems are

right so go on, who would you buy and who would you drop? and how is it going to help?

[ian the fox]

right so go on, who would you buy and who would you drop? and how is it going to help?

you dont watch the matches obviously :chant: :chant: :chant: :chant:

[foxaholic]

The Pearson out brigade only raise there head when we lose, no one was picking negatives out after Tuesday night, I no our away form isn't the best but there is still a heck of a long way to go! Regarding te people who want him out, not one has put in a good suggestion to who they would like to see replace him. It's very easy to crititse and say you want him gone, but who would you want in? At this time of the season ?! It's just ridiculous if you not happy unfortunately your going to have to put up with it, we have had a cracking season so far with a team that has been built from scratch, why don't you just ride the wave for the next 2/3 months and see where it takes us? Just enjoy the rough with the smooth and get behind the team, you never know you might actually enjoy it!

If you go to only home games it is a good season but how it is a cracking season when we havealready lost 11 and our away record is the same as Peterborough is puzzling. Dont forget our wage bill is 27 million per year so how goodarewe doing

[chris_lcfc_85]

It really annoys me how much we debate the Pearson in or out after every loss! Jesus give the guy a rest.

We only sing his name when we are winning too, fickle or what

[inckley fox]

I'm not sure how to quote a quote - but here's my original post with EalingFox's additions, and mine on top of that. Hope it's not too confusing!

"Firstly, your question was "'who says' promotion was the aim last season?" As I've pointed out, Pearson and the board both stated publicly that promotion was the aim. Even if Top gave Nige a pat on the back in a shadowy corridor and said 'I'll give you a bit longer than that pal', you can hardly label fans unrealistic for thinking that promotion was, indeed, the objective. - you suggested NP would be gone if he didn't achieve his 'remit' of being promoted at the first time of asking. He didn't, and he's still here."

The word remit is quoted from Pearson, not me, by the way. ('The remit here is promotion' - Nov 17 2011). No, I don't think I suggested that he would be gone if he didn't achieve promotion last season, I just pointed out that this was the aim, and he didn't achieve it. Which is fact.

"Secondly, I'm not as convinced as you are that these players will gain in value - though I'm unsure where your suggestion that I'm 'forgetting' the age and promise of his signings comes from. Up to now none of the players save for Knockaert, Drinkwater and (possibly) Wood will be worth significantly more than when we signed them. Vardy is definitely worth a lot less. Morgan is nearly 30 so it's not likely we'll be selling him until his career is on the decline, when we'll struggle to get our money back. - Anyone that doesn't increase in value enough to be poached for a tidy profit will stay here long enough to justify the price we paid (ie Morgan)"

That's a massive assumption to make. It assumes that all of the signings will either do well and stay at the club, or do well and be sold at a profit. What a shame that wasn't the case with Beckford, Danns or Mills from the Sven era. As for the current crop, do you honestly believe that Vardy will be either 'poached for a tidy profit' or 'justify the price we paid'?

"McKay has had five more months than Pearson in the job, and spent roughly the same amount of money on players. They sit more than ten points above us. Yes McKay inherited a competent side, but then again Pearson inherited the most expensive side in the league, didn't he? - Cardiff have spent more than us. You made the disctinction between cost and competence yourself, so that last sentence means zero."

How does it mean nothing? I was responding to the assertion that we aren't 'that far behind' Cardiff in terms of what Pearson has achieved, in the time he's had, and with the money at hand. The response was given that Cardiff had a squad of competent players assembled over a period of years. I pointed out that Pearson, who has been at Leicester almost as long as McKay has been at Cardiff, inherited the most expensively assembled side in the league. All of those players featured heavily in last season's promotion effort, while Nugent, St. Ledger, Konchesky and Schmeichel have remained part of this season's challenge.

As for money spent, Cardiff have spent 8 million on declared transfers, and up to a rumoured 10 million in total this season, less than 2 million last season. Our transfers are harder to calculate because so many fees are undisclosed, but the 'believed' price quoted by newspapers has our spending at 8.5 million since Pearson returned to the club. If you factor in the difference in the lengths of their respective reigns, their month-by-month spending is pretty much identical.

"As for Watford, their manager - who has been at the club for eight months - has formed a successful side out of loan buys, something which eluded us in early 2008 and, under Sven, in the 2010-11 season. - no fault of Pearson's - and Sven didn't have access to the same pool of players as Zola did he?"

It's hard to imagine a manager in the Championship who has ever been able to access higher profile players than those brought in by Sven in the 2010-11 season. No, that's not Pearson's fault, but it is to Zola's credit that he has managed such a situation - which is the point I was making.

"Holloway, who has been in charge of Palace for a quarter of the time that Pearson has been at Leicester, has spent far less money than us (as did his predecessor), made a far greater profit and formed a side which are in superior form. - actually their form since Holloway started must be very similar to ours. Let's not forget a few weeks ago it looked like they'd drop out of the chase altogether."

By form I'm referring to recent form, rather than the whole body of results since the day Holloway took over. I'm more interested in how the sides are doing right now - from the last five games we have four points to Palace's ten. Either way, he's done what he's done without the resources afforded to Pearson.

[inckley fox]

If you go to only home games it is a good season but how it is a cracking season when we havealready lost 11 and our away record is the same as Peterborough is puzzling. Dont forget our wage bill is 27 million per year so how goodarewe doing

It does sort of destroy the argument that our fickle fans are partly responsible for poor form, doesn't it? Our away support is among the best in the league.

[Dan LCFC]

Yes, squad-building comes with time - as I argued again and again this time last year - but Pearson will not necessarily be the man to finish the job off. His remit when he returned was to win promotion at the first time of asking which - in spite of my arguments in his defence - he failed to do. With considerable financial backing, and an extra year to do what he was employed to do, he has put together a competent team and most commentators expected us to win the league, but we won't, and promotion - at the second time of asking - is starting to look less likely.

His goal, in his first reign, was to win promotion from League One and put together a promotion-challenging side in the Championship, which he did in two years. Nobody should downplay that achievement. But his task this time around shouldn't be confused with that one; this is a board which want success - and now. He was given extremely generous funds and eighteen months to secure promotion - and failure is not an option.

A play off finish in 12-13, without going up, does not deserve to be on that list of great successes you've provided above. The arrival of FFP could mean that there is a very short window of time in which a club can buy their way to success - if Pearson can't do it this time around, make no mistake, his second spell will be looked on as a failure.

I agree with that except for "extremely generous funds". Peanuts compared to his predecessor and he's raised a fair bit of what we've spent this season from selling players. I'm not saying he's had nothing, but he's recouped not far off what he's spent.

[Dan LCFC]

Firstly, your question was "'who says' promotion was the aim last season?" As I've pointed out, Pearson and the board both stated publicly that promotion was the aim. Even if Top gave Nige a pat on the back in a shadowy corridor and said 'I'll give you a bit longer than that pal', you can hardly label fans unrealistic for thinking that promotion was, indeed, the objective.

Secondly, I'm not as convinced as you are that these players will gain in value - though I'm unsure where your suggestion that I'm 'forgetting' the age and promise of his signings comes from. Up to now none of the players save for Knockaert, Drinkwater and (possibly) Wood will be worth significantly more than when we signed them. Vardy is definitely worth a lot less. Morgan is nearly 30 so it's not likely we'll be selling him until his career is on the decline, when we'll struggle to get our money back.

Thirdly, to say Bruce is living in the house that Pearson built is frankly absurd. Their last televised game was introduced with the commentator pointing out that he had only fielded three players who were at the club when he arrived. It would be equally inaccurate to say that Pearson is living in the house that Sven built because we've retained Schmeichel, Konchesky and Nugent.

The rest of your comparison was not especially convincing either.

McKay has had five more months than Pearson in the job, and spent roughly the same amount of money on players. They sit more than ten points above us. Yes McKay inherited a competent side, but then again Pearson inherited the most expensive side in the league, didn't he?

As for Watford, their manager - who has been at the club for eight months - has formed a successful side out of loan buys, something which eluded us in early 2008 and, under Sven, in the 2010-11 season.

Holloway, who has been in charge of Palace for a quarter of the time that Pearson has been at Leicester, has spent far less money than us (as did his predecessor), made a far greater profit and formed a side which are in superior form.

Ultimately Pearson will not be judged on the age of his signings any more than Levein was for bringing in 'young, hungry' players or O'Neill was for bringing in players who were mostly the wrong side of 26. The success of his second spell at the club depends on him winning promotion - and doing that against a set of managers who, up to now, are looking rather more up for the challenge than he is.

See I'm not convinced those managers have completely outdone him to the extent you say he has.

Cardiff & Palace I agree, Mackay's done a fantastic job there but again, they've spent a fair bit themselves. Palace are the real outstanding over-achievers around the top although I put that far more down to Freedman than Holloway - they're even shitter away from home than we are.

However, Hull, although Bruce doesn't use the players Pearson bought a lot, he didn't have the effort of selling a load of completely over-priced over-rated nobheads and had a very good foundation to work from. Add this so the fact they've creamed us for spending this season, it seems to go well un-noticed for whatever reason but they've spent more than us this year and they've not raised as much in player sales either.

Watford, frankly have a set of players far too good for this division on loan. Players like Vydra, Adbi etc... would get in most Premier sides. I'm not saying Zola's done a bad job by any means, but they've literally been handed players that are far too good for this level and it's beginning to shine through, they've had it easier than we have this year.

[_Fatboyslow_]

Probably not but strongly feel they should!

It's hard to know what is most likely as we are not privy to what is said behind closed doors. I for one feel if we don't make the playoffs Pearson could well quit/be forced out which would really be travesty, leaving the job half done.