Is there really a better alternative to Pearson

[indierich06]

I'm not saying he's made loads of bad signings

"Leicester city have signed the first £million non league player" is not the sort of record we should be proud of. Fvcking desperate if ask me and very risky... We could have had a 10-25k a week free agent for 1 or 2 years that would have done far more for the club

 

 

Charlie Austin, Chris Smalling and Steve Morison all started in non-league too, I suppose you wouldn't want any of them either? Sometimes you have to take a gamble. It might pay off, it might not. This time it looks like it hasn't. It's a shame, but I wouldn't be against going down that route again in the future, for sure.

And who knows, Vardy might still surprise some of us. It can take time to adjust to playing in a much higher league.

[bob gregory]

How much did they cost????, collectively prob not a mil let alone each.

Charlie Austin, Chris Smalling and Steve Morison all started in non-league too, I suppose you wouldn't want any of them either? Sometimes you have to take a gamble. It might pay off, it might not. This time it looks like it hasn't. It's a shame, but I wouldn't be against going down that route again in the future, for sure.

And who knows, Vardy might still surprise some of us. It can take time to adjust to playing in a much higher league.

[shade]

8th highest net spender this season. To suggest we aren't one of the highest spenders is rather misleading when you consider that he inherited the most expensively assembled side in the division and still maintains one of the highest wage budgets in the division, and a squad assembled with the highest fees paid to agents of any club in this league. He retains, regularly, Schmeichel, Konchesky and Nugent of the Sven era signings (and, in addition, Beckford, St Ledger and Danns were previously consistently first choices). It's not as if he hasn't benefited from that 2011 spending.

There are many arguments to suggest that Pearson should stay. But the 'he's operated on a shoestring' argument is utterly groundless. We have one of the most expensive squads in the division - end of.

And, while we're at it, 'he replaced them with 20ish year olds' - to my mind the only players aged 20 or under signed by Pearson have been on loan. I make the average age of his signings 24. I looked into this 'youngest squad in the league' business, and we have played many sides this year with younger line-ups than our own. I honestly don't know where we acquire these facts from.

And 'over 30 players out' - he's permanently got rid of 15 players, not 30. Why is it necessary to speak utter rubbish in order to justify your point? Even with loans he's only moved on 24, and 9 of those, evidently are back at the club.

It's precisely this sort of argument which makes me think 'well maybe we should get rid after all', simply because I see, again and again, some of the most ill-formed and straightforwardly fictitious defences of his reign from people like yourself. And what's worse is that so many of these arguments speak down to people who say 'hey, this guy hasn't done the job he was expected to do this season' as if they were village idiots. Despite the fact that most of the Pro-Pearson brigade - and I could name a few - said 'we'll see in May, if we aren't promoted then I'll join those calling for his head'.

Perhaps some people are just unconditionally unambitious.

Me - I'm happy with us staying with Pearson. Not because we have a thriftily assembled squad, not because he did a good job this year, but because he represents continuity and a steady evolution of the squad. Because he knows these players better than anyone else.

Some say there's no-one better out there - well, that's obviously nonsense. Only the most stubborn of fools would assert that Di Matteo and O'Neill are inferior managers to Pearson. And forget the 'they'd never come here' argument. We attracted one of Europe's most successful managers here three years ago, of course we could get them if our finances were in check. But they aren't, and we can't. So it's Pearson, and I can quite happily live with that. But please, stop pretending that he's done a fantastic job under difficult circumstances, and there's nothing better out there. Because that, put simply, is wrong.

excellent.

[indierich06]

How much did they cost????, collectively prob not a mil let alone each.

 

 

That's completely irrelevent to my point though, sometimes you have to take a gamble on a player. If he'd come here and scored 25 goals in his first season, no-one would give a toss how much we paid for him.

[Babylon]

And, while we're at it, 'he replaced them with 20ish year olds' - to my mind the only players aged 20 or under signed by Pearson have been on loan. I make the average age of his signings 24. I looked into this 'youngest squad in the league' business, and we have played many sides this year with younger line-ups than our own. I honestly don't know where we acquire these facts from.

Only Peterborough had a younger squad than us in this league, and we have about the 3rd/4th in the football league if memory serves me correct. People don't just make this stuff up, there were links posted on here some time ago.

[Babylon]

8th highest net spender this season. To suggest we aren't one of the highest spenders is rather misleading when you consider that he inherited the most expensively assembled side in the division and still maintains one of the highest wage budgets in the division, and a squad assembled with the highest fees paid to agents of any club in this league. He retains, regularly, Schmeichel, Konchesky and Nugent of the Sven era signings (and, in addition, Beckford, St Ledger and Danns were previously consistently first choices). It's not as if he hasn't benefited from that 2011 spending.

And on the slip side other managers have benefited from players signed in previous seasons. Cardiff, Hull, Forest, Bolton, Wolves, Boro, Ipswich, Birmingham, Blackburn have all spent millions in previous seasons.

[indierich06]

And on the slip side other managers have benefited from players signed in previous seasons. Cardiff, Hull, Forest, Bolton, Wolves, Boro, Ipswich, Birmingham, Blackburn have all spent millions in previous seasons.

 

Plus 'expensively assembled' doesn't automatically mean good. The fact that we're stuck with all these players that are on high wages and are of low quality almost certainly stopped us from bringing in better players last season and it will continue to hamper us this season and for as long as they are at the club.

 

Whoever the manager is at the start of this season, his primary objective should be ridding us of the following:

 

Beckford

Danns

St Ledger

Konchesky

Gallagher

Wellens

 

Some of them are decent players and if they weren't on such disgustingly high wages then I'd say we should keep a few of them, but none of them are worth what they're being paid and we can do much better for much cheaper.

[Babylon]

Plus 'expensively assembled' doesn't automatically mean good. The fact that we're stuck with all these players that are on high wages and are of low quality almost certainly stopped us from bringing in better players last season and it will continue to hamper us this season and for as long as they are at the club.

 

Whoever the manager is at the start of this season, his primary objective should be ridding us of the following:

 

Beckford

Danns

St Ledger

Konchesky

Gallagher

Wellens

 

Some of them are decent players and if they weren't on such disgustingly high wages then I'd say we should keep a few of them, but none of them are worth what they're being paid and we can do much better for much cheaper.

Yup... gonna be a nightmare to get rid of, and we will probably be paying something towards them no matter where they go.

[cambridgefox]

Yup... gonna be a nightmare to get rid of, and we will probably be paying something towards them no matter where they go.

Has anyone knocked on Boltons door in the last few days!

[bob gregory]

But he didn't.

That's completely irrelevent to my point though, sometimes you have to take a gamble on a player. If he'd come here and scored 25 goals in his first season, no-one would give a toss how much we paid for him.

[bob gregory]

Also when did a wasted million become irrelevant, if I had wasted a mil I would think it to be very relevant to know if he's got any more of these gems up his sleeve

quote name="indierich06" post="2615555" timestamp="1369035285"]

That's completely irrelevent to my point though, sometimes you have to take a gamble on a player. If he'd come here and scored 25 goals in his first season, no-one would give a toss how much we paid for him.

[Leicester_Numan]

Of course there are better alternatives to Pearson, are there any realistic alternatives at this point with FFP coming in and a squad of overpaid players we might struggle to offload? Probably not

[suffolk fox]

Let's be honest only our club could spend one million pounds on a non league player ? It's like Bullseye, Jim Bowen pulls back the curtain and says, "look Nigel look what you could have brought?"

[inckley fox]

Only Peterborough had a younger squad than us in this league, and we have about the 3rd/4th in the football league if memory serves me correct. People don't just make this stuff up, there were links posted on here some time ago.

 

Well, if you count players like Panayiotou in our squad (which he isn't, seeing as he wasn't named in our matchday squad once all season), and compare him against the likes of Chalobah who is the same age and plays regularly for Watford, then yes our squad is younger than theirs. The first team we played against Watford was marginally younger than theirs (due to two of their players being 35 and 36 years old).

 

However if you look at the last ten sides we've played, we have an older squad than three of them (Derby, Cardiff, Birmingham) and only marginally younger than most of the others. I'm not sure, then, where this information comes from.

[inckley fox]

And on the slip side other managers have benefited from players signed in previous seasons. Cardiff, Hull, Forest, Bolton, Wolves, Boro, Ipswich, Birmingham, Blackburn have all spent millions in previous seasons.

 

Yes, of course. The point I'm making is that we spent more in previous seasons than Cardiff, Hull, Forest, Boro, Ipswich, Birmingham and Blackburn. So, clearly, the value of the players that Pearson inherited from those previous seasons is greater than that of our rivals' squads.

[indierich06]

Yes, of course. The point I'm making is that we spent more in previous seasons than Cardiff, Hull, Forest, Boro, Ipswich, Birmingham and Blackburn. So, clearly, the value of the players that Pearson inherited from those previous seasons is greater than that of our rivals' squads.

 

I'd still maintain that he's had more problems than benefits due to the reckless spending of our previous manager. The sooner we get some of these high earners off the books, the betters. I wouldn't be averse to seeing players like Konchesky, Schmeichel or Nugent leaving either. They aren't irreplaceable and they're all such a massive drain on our resources.

[inckley fox]

Plus 'expensively assembled' doesn't automatically mean good. The fact that we're stuck with all these players that are on high wages and are of low quality almost certainly stopped us from bringing in better players last season and it will continue to hamper us this season and for as long as they are at the club.

 

Whoever the manager is at the start of this season, his primary objective should be ridding us of the following:

 

Beckford

Danns

St Ledger

Konchesky

Gallagher

Wellens

 

Some of them are decent players and if they weren't on such disgustingly high wages then I'd say we should keep a few of them, but none of them are worth what they're being paid and we can do much better for much cheaper.

 

Two of those players were signed by Pearson (Gallagher, Wellens) and he wanted to sign another before Sven snapped him up (Danns). A fourth (Konchesky) has been a first choice player all this season and all last season. A fifth was first choice for a whole calendar year until he got injured before Xmas (St Ledger). And the other player (Beckford) was in Pearson's first team line up all of last season and remained first choice - ahead of several of his own signings - at the start of this season.

 

It's not as if poor Nigel has been blighted by their presence, is it? He may well have since fallen out with them, but it's not as if they were entirely useless to him up to that point.

 

As for 'expensively assembled doesn't necessarily mean good', yes you're absolutely correct. And yes, I'm sure he would have loved to spend some of Sven's misspent millions, and had the hefty wage bill freed up for his own investments.

 

However Whitbread, Futacs and Vardy - as well as two of the aforementioned counterproductive signings - were his own buys.

 

He has managed to move on fifteen of the players he inherited (receiving fees which aided his own squad building for Bamba, Peltier and Mills) and continues to benefit from the presence of three of them in his first choice line-up. In addition to this, his spending has been in the region of 10 million which makes him one of the division's five biggest spenders over the past eighteen months. I hardly think we can argue that he hasn't benefited considerably from our financial resources, and those of his predecessor.

 

Where our spending has been counterproductive, Pearson has his own fair share of responsibility.

[indierich06]

Two of those players were signed by Pearson (Gallagher, Wellens) and he wanted to sign another before Sven snapped him up (Danns). A fourth (Konchesky) has been a first choice player all this season and all last season. A fifth was first choice for a whole calendar year until he got injured before Xmas (St Ledger). And the other player (Beckford) was in Pearson's first team line up all of last season and remained first choice - ahead of several of his own signings - at the start of this season.

 

It's not as if poor Nigel has been blighted by their presence, is it? He may well have since fallen out with them, but it's not as if they were entirely useless to him up to that point.

 

As for 'expensively assembled doesn't necessarily mean good', yes you're absolutely correct. And yes, I'm sure he would have loved to spend some of Sven's misspent millions, and had the hefty wage bill freed up for his own investments.

 

However Whitbread, Futacs and Vardy - as well as two of the aforementioned counterproductive signings - were his own buys.

 

He has managed to move on fifteen of the players he inherited (receiving fees which aided his own squad building for Bamba, Peltier and Mills) and continues to benefit from the presence of three of them in his first choice line-up. In addition to this, his spending has been in the region of 10 million which makes him one of the division's five biggest spenders over the past eighteen months. I hardly think we can argue that he hasn't benefited considerably from our financial resources, and those of his predecessor.

 

Where our spending has been counterproductive, Pearson has his own fair share of responsibility.

 

I'm not saying he hasn't benefitted at all, I'm saying the drawbacks to that financial investment - and particularly that wage bill - have outweighed the benefits and it has and will continue to hamper whoever is managing our club in the future until these players move on. 

 

And with Gallagher and Wellens - I'm well aware Pearson signed them, but it was Sven who gave them new and improved contracts and I think it's time we got rid of them if possible, because they're not worth what they're being paid to be honest.

[inckley fox]

I'd still maintain that he's had more problems than benefits due to the reckless spending of our previous manager. The sooner we get some of these high earners off the books, the betters. I wouldn't be averse to seeing players like Konchesky, Schmeichel or Nugent leaving either. They aren't irreplaceable and they're all such a massive drain on our resources.

 

I agree with you to an extent. It depends on the quality of replacements. If we let go of Schmeichel we'd need a better replacement than pretty much any permanent goalkeeper we've signed since Ian Walker, and if we let go of Nugent we'd need to do better than Futacs, Vardy etc. These are experienced players we're talking about.

 

And that's my point. His signings made last summer were not, on balance, good enough. Of six of them only two clearly worked out (James and Knockaert) while De Laet divides opinion. If we're to go up next year, he has to do better this summer with, almost certainly, less to spend.

 

I think it's right to say he has had problems as well as benefits from the players he inherited (more problems than benefits? I don't know, I think plenty of managers would have loved to have some of the players he's turfed out at their disposal), but if we're talking about players that need moving on he has his own significant share of the blame: Yes, there's Danns, St Ledger and Beckford from the Eriksson era, but Waghorn, Gallagher, Vardy, Wellens, Futacs and Whitbread were (with the partial exception of Waghorn) very much his own work. And, as someone rightly pointed out, it's going to be tough to get rid of those players.

[inckley fox]

Of course there are better alternatives to Pearson, are there any realistic alternatives at this point with FFP coming in and a squad of overpaid players we might struggle to offload? Probably not

 

Completely correct.

 

I've started to grow irritated with people taking one of two stances. The Pro-Pearson view seems to go like this:

 

* Promotion was not necessarily the remit this season

* Pearson has crafted the 3rd youngest squad in the whole league

* His signings have been good

* There are no better alternatives than Pearson and those that are wouldn't come anyway

* Pearson has had to operate on a shoestring

* We have made clear progress

 

I think those points range from straightforwardly incorrect to very debatable. However the anti-Pearson standpoint is equally off-the-mark, arguing that he has been a poor manager for the club, that he is an out-and-out failure, that there is no hope if he continues into next season.

 

Is it too much to ask for a little balance? Promotion was the remit, the season wasn't a success, he was very well resourced, his signings were a mixed bag and progress was extremely questionable when one considers the collapse in our late season form. But equally this is a capable manager, with a decent base of players and, no, the board probably aren't going to convert the loans into equity that would free up cash for a new boss.

[Dan]

8th highest net spender this season. To suggest we aren't one of the highest spenders is rather misleading when you consider that he inherited the most expensively assembled side in the division and still maintains one of the highest wage budgets in the division, and a squad assembled with the highest fees paid to agents of any club in this league. He retains, regularly, Schmeichel, Konchesky and Nugent of the Sven era signings (and, in addition, Beckford, St Ledger and Danns were previously consistently first choices). It's not as if he hasn't benefited from that 2011 spending.

 

There are many arguments to suggest that Pearson should stay. But the 'he's operated on a shoestring' argument is utterly groundless. We have one of the most expensive squads in the division - end of.

 

And, while we're at it, 'he replaced them with 20ish year olds' - to my mind the only players aged 20 or under signed by Pearson have been on loan. I make the average age of his signings 24. I looked into this 'youngest squad in the league' business, and we have played many sides this year with younger line-ups than our own. I honestly don't know where we acquire these facts from.

 

And 'over 30 players out' - he's permanently got rid of 15 players, not 30. Why is it necessary to speak utter rubbish in order to justify your point? Even with loans he's only moved on 24, and 9 of those, evidently are back at the club.

 

It's precisely this sort of argument which makes me think 'well maybe we should get rid after all', simply because I see, again and again, some of the most ill-formed and straightforwardly fictitious defences of his reign from people like yourself. And what's worse is that so many of these arguments speak down to people who say 'hey, this guy hasn't done the job he was expected to do this season' as if they were village idiots. Despite the fact that most of the Pro-Pearson brigade - and I could name a few - said 'we'll see in May, if we aren't promoted then I'll join those calling for his head'.

 

Perhaps some people are just unconditionally unambitious.

 

Me - I'm happy with us staying with Pearson. Not because we have a thriftily assembled squad, not because he did a good job this year, but because he represents continuity and a steady evolution of the squad. Because he knows these players better than anyone else.

 

Some say there's no-one better out there - well, that's obviously nonsense. Only the most stubborn of fools would assert that Di Matteo and O'Neill are inferior managers to Pearson. And forget the 'they'd never come here' argument. We attracted one of Europe's most successful managers here three years ago, of course we could get them if our finances were in check. But they aren't, and we can't. So it's Pearson, and I can quite happily live with that. But please, stop pretending that he's done a fantastic job under difficult circumstances, and there's nothing better out there. Because that, put simply, is wrong.

 

Excellent read that was and spot on - and I'm also a 'Pearson backer'.

[Leicester_Numan]

Yes, of course. The point I'm making is that we spent more in previous seasons than Cardiff, Hull, Forest, Boro, Ipswich, Birmingham and Blackburn. So, clearly, the value of the players that Pearson inherited from those previous seasons is greater than that of our rivals' squads.

No it's not.

I'm going to spend £20m on the pile of dogshit i can see lying in the street. Is it worth £20m? No. Will you fancy buying it in a years time when it's older and not been smelling regularly because it's just an average pile of dogshit? No. Will you even take it for free? No, I'd have to pay you to take it most likely.

What we pay for someone or something does not necessarily mean that that is their value

[Leicester_Numan]

Completely correct.

I've started to grow irritated with people taking one of two stances. The Pro-Pearson view seems to go like this:

* Promotion was not necessarily the remit this season

* Pearson has crafted the 3rd youngest squad in the whole league

* His signings have been good

* There are no better alternatives than Pearson and those that are wouldn't come anyway

* Pearson has had to operate on a shoestring

* We have made clear progress

I think those points range from straightforwardly incorrect to very debatable. However the anti-Pearson standpoint is equally off-the-mark, arguing that he has been a poor manager for the club, that he is an out-and-out failure, that there is no hope if he continues into next season.

Is it too much to ask for a little balance? Promotion was the remit, the season wasn't a success, he was very well resourced, his signings were a mixed bag and progress was extremely questionable when one considers the collapse in our late season form. But equally this is a capable manager, with a decent base of players and, no, the board probably aren't going to convert the loans into equity that would free up cash for a new boss.

Well, as I kept saying, it was a question for the end of the season, not for February or the whole of the season every time we lost a game.

I don't think there is a realistic alternative to Pearson at this point in time. That may change if we can offload the highly paid, surplus to requirements, or past it players. If he's still the manager at kick off on the first day of the season, he'll get my full support as Leicester manager, until there is sufficient reason to withdraw it during the season. If not, the situation can be better adressed when his contract has run out

[hackneyfox]

 

 

And with Gallagher and Wellens - I'm well aware Pearson signed them, but it was Sven who gave them new and improved contracts and I think it's time we got rid of them if possible, because they're not worth what they're being paid to be honest.

I thought it had been generally agreed in the past that both players had the option of extending their contract (the club had no choice) and picked up that option, Sven just happened to be the manager in charge when this happened.

[Fox92]

I'm not saying he's made loads of bad signings

"Leicester city have signed the first £million non league player" is not the sort of record we should be proud of. Fvcking desperate if ask me and very risky... We could have had a 10-25k a week free agent for 1 or 2 years that would have done far more for the club

 

 

I wouldn't call Vardy's signing 'desperate', but I would agree with that it was 'risky'. We all knew that at the time, and Pearson probably did as well... When you buy a player from a league below you, and/or non league (as this is the case), it's always a risky move. But that was the exciting part of it for me, and I said at the time last summer that Vardy was the exciting signing because he could score for fun, or it not work out.

 

But many players are from non league. Ian Wright, Charlie Austin and Steve Morison were all non league gambles, and a 'gamble' at the time, but they worked out well.

 

I would like to hear your example of this free agent, not that I'm disagreeing with you. Also, consider the financial side of the club. Pearson has done a good job at reducing the wage bill, so would a 10k-25k player be a wise option for two years? (Obviously depends who it was/is).