ramadaone Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 Find out this week if we are Cat 1 under the EPPP Think you might find this possible rumour is related to that decision
Walshy5 Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 Maybe this could be a ploy to drive pearson out rather than having to sack him and pay compo. Well heres hoping anyway. This could also explain the deafening silence around the place and lack of transfer activity!
5waller5 Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 Well personally I'm happy that something is happening .... Our back room staff have been lightweight for a long time. Mandy got rid of everyone because he can run a club on his own and is an autocrat ... then we have put non football people in place, as well as Neville who has no exp beyond LCFC.... Bringing in some exp is a good positive step - recognising we need some industry experience and solving it with an appointment. I wouldn't suggest this means NP gets sacked at all .... It does mean that next time the time is right to get rid we may have the balls to do it.
sphericalfox Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 I hope it's a nice bullet Has it got his name on it?
sphericalfox Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 Here's one I dug up from the past... http://sphericalfox.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/all-i-want-for-christmas/ I suggested the DoF some time ago in the link above, do I get a backslap?
fleckneymike Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 I think the only mild concern would be Stokes less than stellar recruitment process. Their level of expediture was/is incredibly high yet the returns (like our own) are very meagre. I think a director of football is completely the right thing to do, let us hope he promotes and supports Pearson in a more fluid style of play (the very style Pearson deployed to great impact in the first half of the season).
Guest Mee-9 Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 Here's one I dug up from the past... http://sphericalfox.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/all-i-want-for-christmas/ Rocking the pout.
Fox92 Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 Pearson will not like a Director of football one bit Agreed... The Stoke reporter on Football Forum now, indicating that Pulis did not get on with Robinson. Apparently Pulis said that player were not coming through, and if you look at Stoke's first team, there are only two academy players in there. I cannot see Nigel liking this either.
Swiss_tony Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 Please don't say Risdale ridsdale is banned from a being a director of a company till 2020. that should be enough to see his resume filed in the round cabinet in the corner by top and co.
Babylon Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 Apparently Pulis said that player were not coming through, and if you look at Stoke's first team, there are only two academy players in there. I cannot see Nigel liking this either. The bloke was there for two years... if Pullis expected him to be creating players ready for the first team in that time he's a bit stupid really. Especially if he believes that was all down to Robinson.
Bayfox Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 Pearson will not like a Director of football one bit Depends. Maybe joe kinnear got confused!!!!!!!!
Bayfox Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 Agreed... The Stoke reporter on Football Forum now, indicating that Pulis did not get on with Robinson. Apparently Pulis said that player were not coming through, and if you look at Stoke's first team, there are only two academy players in there. I cannot see Nigel liking this either. Yeah cuz pearson is a big fan of bringing youth through. Then selling them or letting utd have them for **** all reason.
Babylon Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 Then selling them or letting utd have them for **** all reason.
DennisNedry Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 Yeah cuz pearson is a big fan of bringing youth through. Then selling them or letting utd have them for **** all reason. Erm we have taken loads of youth players from Man Utd??
Bayfox Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 Erm we have taken loads of youth players from Man Utd?? Correction. We have taken players from utd on loan or paid them cash for players they deem not good enough. We sent a player to train for weeks on end. With no benefit to us other than keeping fergie sweet. Oh and he went and retired. And for anyone who suggest it benefited schlupp. Maybe but apparently that benefit was so great he went from not being able to get a game. To playing anywhere we could squeeze him in. Not sure a month at utd makes you that much better.
Harry - LCFC Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 Yeah cuz pearson is a big fan of bringing youth through. Then selling them or letting utd have them for **** all reason. Moore, King, Schlupp (kind of). I'm not saying he's brilliant in this area but he certainly isn't poor either. Also, we don't sell players to United so you've just made that up I'm afraid, what we do is bring them in from United and let them go back because their loan spell expires.
StanSP Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 Correction. We have taken players from utd on loan or paid them cash for players they deem not good enough. We sent a player to train for weeks on end. With no benefit to us other than keeping fergie sweet. Oh and he went and retired. And for anyone who suggest it benefited schlupp. Maybe but apparently that benefit was so great he went from not being able to get a game. To playing anywhere we could squeeze him in. Not sure a month at utd makes you that much better. 'Anywhere we could squeeze him in'? As a striker? His preferred position? He got goals. That spell at Utd clearly did him the world of good and it DID benefit us. There's no maybe about it. Just because Utd didn't see them as good enough, doesn't mean they're not good enough for us. We're in the Championship for fvck sake. We are not playing at the top of the Premier League.
Bayfox Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 Moore, King, Schlupp (kind of). I'm not saying he's brilliant in this area but he certainly isn't poor either. Also, we don't sell players to United so you've just made that up I'm afraid, what we do is bring them in from United and let them go back because their loan spell expires.Selling them OR?The selling them refered to a max gradel. I never stated we sold players to utd. As for the others king was given a crack in l1 yes i'll grant you that. I'm a big kingy fan and think he could do a job in the top flight in the right side and system. Moore. Umm i think this has gradel mk2. Did nothing wrong and gets farmed out on loan. Leaving richie to play a silly number of games and nearly all 90mins. Moore could have done a job last 20 or so most weeks.
Bayfox Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 'Anywhere we could squeeze him in'? As a striker? His preferred position? He got goals. That spell at Utd clearly did him the world of good and it DID benefit us. There's no maybe about it. Just because Utd didn't see them as good enough, doesn't mean they're not good enough for us. We're in the Championship for fvck sake. We are not playing at the top of the Premier League. Erm left back. Left wing. Up front. His spell at utd just made pearson look a cock. Couldnt get in our side one minute the next he's everywhere. Really he became that much better in a month. Maybe he was just that good already?
Harry - LCFC Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 Selling them OR?The selling them refered to a max gradel. I never stated we sold players to utd.As for the others king was given a crack in l1 yes i'll grant you that. I'm a big kingy fan and think he could do a job in the top flight in the right side and system.Moore. Umm i think this has gradel mk2. Did nothing wrong and gets farmed out on loan. Leaving richie to play a silly number of games and nearly all 90mins. Moore could have done a job last 20 or so most weeks. What point are you trying to make here? Our players don't go to United, they're not sold to them, they aren't given to them for free. Schlupp had a training session which of course isn't a transfer and we had control over it. I don't really get the feeling that Moore's about to leave, Pearson played him at CB when he was 19 which is a somewhat risky move. Shows a lot of faith IMO. Plus it's clear that he has some affection for the club. He was loaned out when he was a tad off form, not a move I was in favour of but not one I massively disagreed with either.
StanSP Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 Erm left back. Left wing. Up front. His spell at utd just made pearson look a cock. Couldnt get in our side one minute the next he's everywhere. Really he became that much better in a month. Maybe he was just that good already? Striker is his PREFERRED position and he himself has said that he's happy to play at LB and doesn't mind it. I don't think Pearson was the first to play Schlupp at LB, either. So you can't point any criticism at him for that. He gained confidence in that month. And a lot of players would playing next to the likes of Van Persie in training. Maybe he was good already, but having the confidence from playing with Man Utd and getting good praise from Fergie did him the world of good, as I said.
Fox92 Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 Yeah cuz pearson is a big fan of bringing youth through. Then selling them or letting utd have them for **** all reason. That's the point that was argued, we haven't had enough quality coming through. I was disappointed when we released the likes of Kee, but what have the gone on too do? Nothing. Pearson gave Moore his debut, and Gradel as well (I think) and then picked Mattock and King regular (I know he didn't them debuts). Gradel wasn't good enough and was sold. Mattock wanted to leave, as did Stearman before him when Pearson first come in. Schlupp is usually included in the first team as well. I don't think Pearson is worse than any other manager for using his youth.
Langley Posted 17 June 2013 Posted 17 June 2013 Striker is his PREFERRED position and he himself has said that he's happy to play at LB and doesn't mind it. I don't think Pearson was the first to play Schlupp at LB, either. So you can't point any criticism at him for that. He gained confidence in that month. And a lot of players would playing next to the likes of Van Persie in training. Maybe he was good already, but having the confidence from playing with Man Utd and getting good praise from Fergie did him the world of good, as I said. Ol' Svennigans played him there first on the tour of Sweden.
Bert Posted 18 June 2013 Posted 18 June 2013 Striker is his PREFERRED position and he himself has said that he's happy to play at LB and doesn't mind it. I don't think Pearson was the first to play Schlupp at LB, either. So you can't point any criticism at him for that. He gained confidence in that month. And a lot of players would playing next to the likes of Van Persie in training. Maybe he was good already, but having the confidence from playing with Man Utd and getting good praise from Fergie did him the world of good, as I said. Yeah that's what he's said in the press....
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.