Nigel in for the long term?!

[LCFC_Peter]

May be looking into this too much, but is Nigel the owners long term plan this is because Pearson has bought the second youngest team in the league (posh have the youngest), he is a cheap manager who spends responsibly and he would be almost perfect for the new FFP rules coming in which makes me think have the owners hired him for the long term with FFP?

I honestly hope so because success is almost impossible to buy but give a manager long enough and he will get the team he wants and improve it season by a season until it is successful and sacking the manager leaves at square one with a new manager wanting a new team which costs a lot!

Does anyone know the length of his contract?

Totally agree the club is lacking stability through too many changes maybe if we kept a manager for a while we may see progress

[johnny the fox]

Do you also remember Alex Ferguson not winning anything in his first six years as Man United manager?

great, nice to see your happy for nigel to win nowt for the next 6 years... who needs ambition..

[LCFC_Peter]

great, nice to see your happy for nigel to win nowt for the next 6 years... who needs ambition..

We wont win anything anyway because we are Leicester so we should do it as cheaply as possible and bring stability through it.

[ealingfox]

great, nice to see your happy for nigel to win nowt for the next 6 years... who needs ambition..

In his first 3 years here he's won more trophies than SAF did in his first 3 years at Man U

[Happy Fox]

Why does time have to be a factor? it takes aptitude, know how and managerial quality these three qualities should stand you in good stead regardless of what level you have managed at whether that is in the Prem, Seria A, Bundeliga for example. NP imo is a honest manager but doesn't really have the quality that makes him stand out at this level compared to the likes of Bruce, Davies and McCarthy for example. You only have to look at Dull who are now in an automatic promotion spot atm and the Redshite who are in the playoffs atm to see the impact of appointing a better manager.

Football is a simple game don't overcomplicate it, appointing a better manager in charge you will generally get better results. Have money you will generally succeed more than clubs that don't have a lot of money, have better players in your team you will finish higher up the table than clubs that don't have good players.

For us to make that transition to the prem and stay there we will need a better manager imo rather than NP.

[LCFC_6410]

Why does time have to be a factor? it takes aptitude, know how and managerial quality these three qualities should stand you in good stead regardless of what level you have managed at whether that is in the Prem, Seria A, Bundeliga for example. NP imo is a honest manager but doesn't really have the quality that makes him stand out at this level compared to the likes of Bruce, Davies and McCarthy for example. You only have to look at Dull who are now in an automatic promotion spot atm and the Redshite who are in the playoffs atm to see the impact of appointing a better manager.

Football is a simple game don't overcomplicate it, appointing a better manager in charge you will generally get better results. Have money you will generally succeed more than clubs that don't have a lot of money, have better players in your team you will finish higher up the table than clubs that don't have good players.

For us to make that transition to the prem and stay there we will need a better manager imo rather than NP.

Time is everything as according to Allen Young it can take a player a year just to settle in and with transfer windows the more time a manager has the more he can improve the squad! for example Kenny Jacket, Millwall are doing a lot better now after having a manager for 6 years

[Happy Fox]

Time is everything as according to Allen Young it can take a player a year just to settle in and with transfer windows the more time a manager has the more he can improve the squad! for example Kenny Jacket, Millwall are doing a lot better now after having a manager for 6 years

I think we may have found the new banterking

[The Year Of The Fox]

In Nigel I still trust

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

The collar is getting tighter around DOG'S neck. Methinks no promotion, then it's

[Leicesterpool]

To be honest some fans would say Pearson the right man for the job even if we we're rock bottom of the championship come christmas of next season any other manager would be called to go.

[Fox92]

Hope so also, I'd certainly give him another season (at the very least) regardless of our final league position this season... The squad he has built is encouraging, and he has managed to bring in decent players while not spending too much transfer budget (just like the previous time he was here). Our form does need to improve, but some of the football we have played, and the goals (team goals) we have scored, this season have been great to see.

I'd rather not see a new manager come in and destroy what Nige has built here. Then we start all over again, just to have this thread next year.

To be honest some fans would say Pearson the right man for the job even if we we're rock bottom of the championship come christmas of next season any other manager would be called to go.

Well, you've summed it up. We're arn't rock bottom of the Championship are we? If we were anywhere near the situation, then my opinion of him might have changed already, but we are 7th and 2 points off of the play offs in April. Hardly need to panic.

[Corky]

I really doubt they would.

Yes, he has his fans (I'm one) but I know that failure to win promotion would see him go, understandably. Failure to be in the play-offs is criminal and that would, I think, justify a dismissal given our positions this season and the outlay on the squad.

You can balance between liking the manager and knowing what is expected. If he goes, I wish him all the best, and hope that his replacement is an improvement.

I wouldn't hate the bloke if we finished 7th or lower but I would also be disappointed in his performance.

[LeicesterAreGoingUp]

doesnt his contract run out this year?

[inckley fox]

Yes but most of those were newly relegated sides with PL quality already in the team

Counting QPR and Reading as relegated, and Cardiff and either Hull or Watford as promoted, then this is the picture over the past twenty seasons of promotion and relegation.

There are only 11 promotions, from the 59 that have occurred in that period, in which the manager has been in charge for three seasons or more, and taken a side up. The managers were Worthington, Bruce, Warnock, Jewell, Megson, Curbishley, Reid, Little, Rioch, Wilson and Burley.

Of those eleven promotions, six of the teams came back down within a year. Two more came down within two seasons.

There is also Tony Pulis (if his first spell at Stoke is counted then he served more than three years) who sustained his side in the top flight, but then again Coppell at Reading (who served just under three years) didn’t.

48 promotions, then, came from sides whose managers had been at the club for less than three years; in most cases less than two. 29 stayed up in their first season, well over half, and 23 were still in the division after two seasons.

In other words, clubs going up with a new manager tend to do better than those who’ve stuck with their manager for a few seasons.

It’s been suggested that sides who go down are much easier for incoming managers to get promoted than sides established outside of the top flight.

That’s probably true, but less sides bounce back than you might think. Only just over a quarter of promotions have been from sides who’ve just come down, and yes, two thirds of those teams did it by employing a new manager when they went down. But of the rest of the clubs, nearly half of them have gone up with managers who have been at the club for less than two years, and half of these stayed up.

Again, there’s nothing in the stats to suggest that a club is always better off persisting.

[The Quick Brown Fox]

I don't know why but I got a feeling he was assured he wouldn't be sacked until his contract was up. Why come back unless he had some job security? Like I say just a feeling.

[Walshy5]

Counting QPR and Reading as relegated, and Cardiff and either Hull or Watford as promoted, then this is the picture over the past twenty seasons of promotion and relegation.

There are only 11 promotions, from the 59 that have occurred in that period, in which the manager has been in charge for three seasons or more, and taken a side up. The managers were Worthington, Bruce, Warnock, Jewell, Megson, Curbishley, Reid, Little, Rioch, Wilson and Burley.

Of those eleven promotions, six of the teams came back down within a year. Two more came down within two seasons.

There is also Tony Pulis (if his first spell at Stoke is counted then he served more than three years) who sustained his side in the top flight, but then again Coppell at Reading (who served just under three years) didn’t.

48 promotions, then, came from sides whose managers had been at the club for less than three years; in most cases less than two. 29 stayed up in their first season, well over half, and 23 were still in the division after two seasons.

In other words, clubs going up with a new manager tend to do better than those who’ve stuck with their manager for a few seasons.

It’s been suggested that sides who go down are much easier for incoming managers to get promoted than sides established outside of the top flight.

That’s probably true, but less sides bounce back than you might think. Only just over a quarter of promotions have been from sides who’ve just come down, and yes, two thirds of those teams did it by employing a new manager when they went down. But of the rest of the clubs, nearly half of them have gone up with managers who have been at the club for less than two years, and half of these stayed up.

Again, there’s nothing in the stats to suggest that a club is always better off persisting.

Can you send this to our owners in a letter? Hopefully it might convince them to get rid.

[Col city fan]

I have no facts but I've always thought Pearson and the owners have a two year plan.

This season... To reduce the wage bill and to develop a young side.

Next season.... To gain automatic promotion.

Whatever the outcome THIS season, I think he'll stay and have the summer. However, if there aren't signs of marked improvement for the first ten games or so, he's gone.

[5waller5]

Except for the FA Cup, the UEFA Super Cup, the UEFA Cup Winners Cup and the Charity Shield.

Oh, and this is the same Alex Ferguson who had - prior to that - won five cups and three leagues in Scotland, the UEFA Cup and the Super Cup, and managed the national team. And he finished second with Manchester United in his first season. So there were very good reasons for believing he would come good, and in the recent past rather than - as in our case with, say, Sven - the distant.

Brilliant answer ..... The "alex ferguson was given time" so therefore it's right to stick by NP who clearly has not got what it takes argument does my head in!!

[dannythefox]

Depending on what happens if we get in the playoffs he could be here next season but he wouldnt last 2 minutes in the premiership!

[5waller5]

Counting QPR and Reading as relegated, and Cardiff and either Hull or Watford as promoted, then this is the picture over the past twenty seasons of promotion and relegation.

There are only 11 promotions, from the 59 that have occurred in that period, in which the manager has been in charge for three seasons or more, and taken a side up. The managers were Worthington, Bruce, Warnock, Jewell, Megson, Curbishley, Reid, Little, Rioch, Wilson and Burley.

Of those eleven promotions, six of the teams came back down within a year. Two more came down within two seasons.

There is also Tony Pulis (if his first spell at Stoke is counted then he served more than three years) who sustained his side in the top flight, but then again Coppell at Reading (who served just under three years) didn’t.

48 promotions, then, came from sides whose managers had been at the club for less than three years; in most cases less than two. 29 stayed up in their first season, well over half, and 23 were still in the division after two seasons.

In other words, clubs going up with a new manager tend to do better than those who’ve stuck with their manager for a few seasons.

It’s been suggested that sides who go down are much easier for incoming managers to get promoted than sides established outside of the top flight.

That’s probably true, but less sides bounce back than you might think. Only just over a quarter of promotions have been from sides who’ve just come down, and yes, two thirds of those teams did it by employing a new manager when they went down. But of the rest of the clubs, nearly half of them have gone up with managers who have been at the club for less than two years, and half of these stayed up.

Again, there’s nothing in the stats to suggest that a club is always better off persisting.

Another brilliant post!!!

How are you not getting massive rep points for these beauties!!!!!

[RowZ]

May be looking into this too much, but is Nigel the owners long term plan this is because Pearson has bought the second youngest team in the league (posh have the youngest), he is a cheap manager who spends responsibly and he would be almost perfect for the new FFP rules coming in which makes me think have the owners hired him for the long term with FFP?

I honestly hope so because success is almost impossible to buy but give a manager long enough and he will get the team he wants and improve it season by a season until it is successful and sacking the manager leaves at square one with a new manager wanting a new team which costs a lot!

Does anyone know the length of his contract?

You're on your own with this one mate.

The Blades are now looking for a news boss. Bye bye pearson

...(please)!

[wurmer]

He's here for the long term.

I finally 'get it' now and now understand that our owners have changed their approach from spend spend and get there quickly, to buy young and build a team that will get there and sustain.

If you look at our teams age, and the fact they've managed to stay in touch of the playoffs in essentially their first year, it doesn't look so bad.

[dog_4]

The longer he stays the more likely another Knockeart or Mark Davies will come to the club with Steve Walsh around! This squad will get better

[hifi]

Hope so also, I'd certainly give him another season (at the very least) regardless of our final league position this season... The squad he has built is encouraging, and he has managed to bring in decent players while not spending too much transfer budget (just like the previous time he was here). Our form does need to improve, but some of the football we have played, and the goals (team goals) we have scored, this season have been great to see.

I'd rather not see a new manager come in and destroy what Nige has built here. Then we start all over again, just to have this thread next year.

Well, you've summed it up. We're arn't rock bottom of the Championship are we? If we were anywhere near the situation, then my opinion of him might have changed already, but we are 7th and 2 points off of the play offs in April. Hardly need to panic.

Agreed.

[inckley fox]

He's here for the long term.

I finally 'get it' now and now understand that our owners have changed their approach from spend spend and get there quickly, to buy young and build a team that will get there and sustain.

If you look at our teams age, and the fact they've managed to stay in touch of the playoffs in essentially their first year, it doesn't look so bad.

I'm pleased to see us bringing in players with promise, but the argument that the age of our squad excuses its (possible) failure to go up does not hold.

Pearson spent nearly 10m on assembling a squad in order to win promotion, he signed young players because he believed that to be the best way to do just that. Yes, a young squad means you have players who may gain in value (although this has been far from the case with our under-25 signings over the course of the past fifteen years), and that there is the potential for longer-term squad building (although the most established squad we've had in recent years was under O'Neill, whose signings had an average age of 26+), but these are very much secondary - the priority is short-term success.

Promotion is the aim and one of the main motivations for buying young would be that second tier foreign players like Knockaert and Premier League reserves like Wood, Marshall, Drinkwater, James and De Laet tend to be cheaper in terms of wages and, often, fees than big name veterans (like Beckford, Nugent, Abe, Fernandes and Konchesky) or players with pedigree at Championship level (like Danns, St. Ledger, Mills or Schmeichel).

As for the much-vaunted 'first team age' argument, our line-ups are actually quite rich in experience. On Saturday we played one of our youngest line-ups but still fielded Konchesky (32), Morgan (29), Nugent (28) and Schmeichel (26). On the other hand one game earlier we had Dyer (30) and Whitbread (28) in the side. Two games before that Wellens (32) and St. Ledger (28) were both in there. When we played Derby their line-up was younger than ours; age didn't enter into the argument as they won.

On top of that some of those youngsters that bring down the average age of our squad are not parts of our long-term squad building. Kane and Keane are both on loan, while Pearson seems keen to sell Schlupp. In this event, our squad would no longer be the youngest in the league, not by far, nor even in this division.

Young sides have been promoted in the past. Pearson is not stupid enough, under pressure to achieve promotion, to attempt to do it with the youngest side in living memory that would have managed it. He has built a squad with the emphasis on youth, but considerable experience (how many Championship sides have two ex-England internationals, six current internationals and seven or eight players with 5+ years of experience in this league?). Pearson put a team together as economically as possible in order to achieve promotion now and even if these players do gain in value - and that's a big if - then they will cost us far more if they fail to take us up.

Pearson will be judged, like Little, O'Neill and Adams or even Levein and Sven, on whether or not he takes us up. And I'm sure the 10m price tag on failure will be remembered far better than the average age of the offenders if he doesn't.