The Beckford Saga part God knows....

[Mark_w]

I remain intrigued to see what Danns and Beckford could do if they both had an injury free, sustained run in a team.

Not as loanees, not as subs... And most importantly, playing in a good side.

Sven's teams weren't good, and the teams that Pearson took over weren't good.

The team is better now. Morgan and RDL make a difference, as does James.

I still wonder what a central midfield partnership of James and Danns could do, with Beckford partnering Nuge or Wood up front.

This isn't me being 'awkward'.. It's asking a genuine question.

If Pearson simply dismisses such options, then I think it shows a failing in him. But I thought that last season too.

Having Beckford and Danns out on loan whilst we continued with Drinkwater and Kane made no footballing sense to me. I can only assume it must have been about money.

 

Beckford had an injury free season at an average Championship side last year and did an average job. In the same team David Nugent out scored him. In an equally average Millwall side, in half a season, Chris Wood out scored him. We shouldn't be playing him ahead of either and if we're not going to start a 29/30 year old striker who is probably our highest earner, then we should be selling him. Surely any sane person can see that?

[Babylon]

Sven's teams weren't good, and the teams that Pearson took over weren't good.

 

Perhaps because they were in it?

[Babylon]

Perhaps he dismisses the option as neither player is a squad player, or happy being such.

This isn't me being 'awkward'.. It's asking a genuine question.
If Pearson simply dismisses such options

[Dickov22]

It's not known whether he wants rid of Drinkwater, it's not known he fell out with Wood. You say he made up an injury, well in that case so did Wood when he could have said nothing. Perhaps, just perhaps he was carrying an injury.

It's not known he has bust ups. Every single player here or sold has said there were no bust ups, when again they could have said nothing, the manager has denied any bust ups. There isn't a single piece of credible evidence for there being a bust up.

What we do know though, is that he chose not to pick certain players, and decided he wanted to move on certain players. He has been quite open about his reasons without naming players directly.

You can either believe the players, the manager, the managers stated reasons for not wanting certain players at the club. Or you believe they are all lying.

I have said time and time again previously I have nothing personal against Beckford. I have stated I would give him chances to be part of our SQUAD should he want to be. He made it clear to the management he didn't want to be, so I don't want him anywhere near the club.

Bang on

[seenitall]

but in the same way you want us to forgive Nige for being downright average for the past 18 months shouldn't y'all be thinking  of forgiving Jermaine his past sins?????

[ealingfox]

but in the same way you want us to forgive Nige for being downright average for the past 18 months shouldn't y'all be thinking  of forgiving Jermaine his past sins?????

 

Clutching at straws yet again, I think you're losing your touch knowfvckall.

[Guest Col city fan]

Bang on

It's not bang on at all.

It misses the crucial question of WHY Beckford didn't want to be at the club. The same question as with Matt Mills.

Neither are sensational players. Both were signed for way too much money.

But both, it seems, wanted out when they were managed by Pearson. The important question is why.

I firmly believe, (without actually knowing) that Pearson most probably takes a dislike to certain players. And then bins them. If you believe the interview Mills gave after leaving the club, he was effectively shunned, ignored.

There is a big difference between being sidelined for footballing reasons than for differences of personality, character and power.

Yes, money is an important factor here... It's no surprise that Pearson wanted rid of his two biggest paid players. But again, it raises questions regarding his man management skills.

I say again, I cannot understand, in purely footballing terms, the omission of Danns and Beckford whilst, at the same time, the inclusion of Kane and a very out of sorts Drinkwater. That makes no sense to me. I CAN understand it if money was the only issue.

But once more, this type of thing concerns me in Pearson. We have two players here on big wages, it's likely that we have a job to sell them on, mainly due to wage demands. It is the role of a football manager to include them, to make them feel valued and therefore to get the best out of them. If they were both dreadful players, I wouldn't be bothered. I'd be content to see them playing in the reserves, or even to simply have their contracts terminated. But they aren't dreadful players. In fact, during our SHOCKING run last season I would have far rather seen the inclusion of Beckford for the appalling Kane and Danns for Drinkwater.

Anyone who can't see THIS must be insane IMO.

Certain aspects of Pearson's management savvy worry me. This is one of them.

[Mark_w]

but in the same way you want us to forgive Nige for being downright average for the past 18 months shouldn't y'all be thinking  of forgiving Jermaine his past sins?????

 

Most of us expected Nigel to get us in to the top six last year, he did that.

Beckford failed to show the levels of commitment expected of him and his goal tally wasn't exactly incredible.

 

A more interesting question is, why if you think both have been average, do you defend Beckford yet constantly slate Pearson?

[Guest Col city fan]

Most of us expected Nigel to get us in to the top six last year, he did that.

Beckford failed to show the levels of commitment expected of him and his goal tally wasn't exactly incredible.

A more interesting question is, why if you think both have been average, do you defend Beckford yet constantly slate Pearson?

The answer is because Seenitall apparently doesn't like Pearson. In fact, he would like to see Sven back I think?

His love affair with Sven is the single biggest reason it's difficult to take him seriously. Seenitall makes some clever posts, I've always thought that, but I'll never get the Sven love. Sven was garbage IMO.

[ealingfox]

It's not bang on at all.

It misses the crucial question of WHY Beckford didn't want to be at the club. The same question as with Matt Mills.

Neither are sensational players. Both were signed for way too much money.

But both, it seems, wanted out when they were managed by Pearson. The important question is why.

I firmly believe, (without actually knowing) that Pearson most probably takes a dislike to certain players. And then bins them. If you believe the interview Mills gave after leaving the club, he was effectively shunned, ignored.

There is a big difference between being sidelined for footballing reasons than for differences of personality, character and power.

Yes, money is an important factor here... It's no surprise that Pearson wanted rid of his two biggest paid players. But again, it raises questions regarding his man management skills.

I say again, I cannot understand, in purely footballing terms, the omission of Danns and Beckford whilst, at the same time, the inclusion of Kane and a very out of sorts Drinkwater. That makes no sense to me. I CAN understand it if money was the only issue.

But once more, this type of thing concerns me in Pearson. We have two players here on big wages, it's likely that we have a job to sell them on, mainly due to wage demands. It is the role of a football manager to include them, to make them feel valued and therefore to get the best out of them. If they were both dreadful players, I wouldn't be bothered. I'd be content to see them playing in the reserves, or even to simply have their contracts terminated. But they aren't dreadful players. In fact, during our SHOCKING run last season I would have far rather seen the inclusion of Beckford for the appalling Kane and Danns for Drinkwater.

Anyone who can't see THIS must be insane IMO.

Certain aspects of Pearson's management savvy worry me. This is one of them.

 

But have you ever noticed that all the 'big-money' Sven signings who are actually good are still in the side? Nugent, Schmeics, Konchy? For some bizarre reason it only seems to be the shit ones that get fobbed off, funny that isn't it?

 

Name me a player that was good for us, and worked well in the team, that NP shipped out because he didn't take a liking to them?

 

There's ya fvcking footballing reasons.

[Guest Col city fan]

But have you ever noticed that all the 'big-money' Sven signings who are actually good are still in the side? Nugent, Schmeics, Konchy? For some bizarre reason it only seems to be the shit ones that get fobbed off, funny that isn't it?

Name me a player that was good for us, and worked well in the team, that NP shipped out because he didn't take a liking to them?

There's ya fvcking footballing reasons.

The evidence (and the stats) are that we conceded fewest goals when Matt Mills was partnering Wes Morgan. Not by much, but that was the reality.

I also said (and you conveniently overlooked.. Surprise surprise) that I will never understand playing Kane with Beckford out on loan. Or pass the ball sideways Drinkwater, when Danns was not in the reckoning?

I'm trying to have a reasoned debate on this thread. As usual, the usual suspects, those who just WILL NOT entertain that Pearson has his weaknesses, are scuppering this attempt.

Finally... Those of Sven's signings that are good? I thought Konch had his worst season for City last term and Nugent went on a run of God knows how long without scoring?

Kasper... I can't argue with.

It really isn't surprising that some disagree with this Pearson love so strongly. There are some on here, yourself included, that refuse to provide any sort of balance to your arguments. Either you are stubborn or just plain daft. I can never work out which.

[Dan]

This.

 

Logan will be the replacement between the sticks & we'll promote a few of the (more ready) academy players to fill the holes & toe the FFP line. 

 

I'd rather we used academy players than mercenaries like Beckford who aren't arsed about LCFC.

[ealingfox]

The evidence (and the stats) are that we conceded fewest goals when Matt Mills was partnering Wes Morgan. Not by much, but that was the reality.

I also said (and you conveniently overlooked.. Surprise surprise) that I will never understand playing Kane with Beckford out on loan. Or pass the ball sideways Drinkwater, when Danns was not in the reckoning?

I'm trying to have a reasoned debate on this thread. As usual, the usual suspects, those who just WILL NOT entertain that Pearson has his weaknesses, are scuppering this attempt.

 

The same Matt Mills who booted it out of play most of the time, or who got sent off in stupid fashion on numerous occasions?

 

I overlooked it because its bloody irrelevant to Danns or Beckford. Kane sucks, I agree with that, was worth a shot though. Drinkwater did enough to merit his inclusion by being great in the first half of the season. Just because someone who is playing shit is in the team, why does that mean we have to bring back someone else who is also shit, but also an arsehole, to give them a go? Your logic is appalling.

 

YAWN. Not this shit again. You still don't believe that those who support Pearson don't think the sun shines out of his arse? Well fvcking wise up, because we know he has his limitations, but he is still a good manager. The one who is scuppering reasonable debate is you by bringing up Jermaine Beckford every 5 minutes, so don't try and take the moral bloody high ground there.

[Mark_w]

The evidence (and the stats) are that we conceded fewest goals when Matt Mills was partnering Wes Morgan. Not by much, but that was the reality.

I also said (and you conveniently overlooked.. Surprise surprise) that I will never understand playing Kane with Beckford out on loan. Or pass the ball sideways Drinkwater, when Danns was not in the reckoning?

I'm trying to have a reasoned debate on this thread. As usual, the usual suspects, those who just WILL NOT entertain that Pearson has his weaknesses, are scuppering this attempt.

 

To be fair, it's very easy to say that Beckford would have been a better option than Kane once the season is over. But put it this way, at the start of the year would you have preferred the less expensive, younger, striker who had scored 7 in 21 for Millwall the season before or the expensive 29 year old who had scored 9 in 39 for Leicester in the same season?

 

Because to be honest, Harry Kane looked like the better option to me.

 

And just because you prefer Danns to Drinkwater, doesn't mean that Danns is a better player. I prefer Drinkwater myself, I certainly would rather have Drinkwater partnering Andy King. I'm sure many other people, including Nigel Pearson apparently, would feel the same way.

[Guest Col city fan]

The same Matt Mills who booted it out of play most of the time, or who got sent off in stupid fashion on numerous occasions?

I overlooked it because its bloody irrelevant to Danns or Beckford. Kane sucks, I agree with that, was worth a shot though. Drinkwater did enough to merit his inclusion by being great in the first half of the season. Just because someone else who is playing shit is in the team, why does that mean we have to bring back someone else who is also shit, but also an arsehole, to give them a go? Your logic is appalling.

YAWN. Not this shit again. You still don't believe that those who support Pearson don't think the sun shines out of his arse? Well fvcking wise up, because we know he has his limitations, but he is still a good manager. The one who is scuppering reasonable debate is you by bringing up Jermaine Beckford every 5 minutes, so don't try and take the moral bloody high ground there.

Your suggestion that 'Danns is an arsehole' basically sums it up for me. How the fook do you know? Again, he's seemed pretty popular and well liked at the clubs he's been out on loan to.

I believe Danns is quite a character isn't he? Has his own opinions on stuff and not adverse to voicing them? Does that make him an 'arsehole'?

And yes, absolutely, at a time where we were struggling to get the ball forward quickly and to score goals, I'd have returned him to the side.

Your post sums up where you are coming from and suggests, to me, that you will remain content with Pearson until he's sacked. Then you'll probably argue that he wasn't really that good anyway.

Finally, the fookin thread is about Beckford!

[ealingfox]

Your suggestion that 'Danns is an arsehole' basically sums it up for me. How the fook do you know? Again, he's seemed pretty popular and well liked at the clubs he's been out on loan to.

I believe Danns is quite a character isn't he? Has his own opinions on stuff and not adverse to voicing them? Does that make him an 'arsehole'?

And yes, absolutely, at a time where we were struggling to get the ball forward quickly and to score goals, I'd have returned him to the side.

Your post sums up where you are coming from and suggests, to me, that you will remain content with Pearson until he's sacked. Then you'll probably argue that he wasn't really that good anyway.

 

 

Firstly:

 

 

Find it funny how all the boo-boys insist on arguing that anyone who supports Pearson is a 'Pearson-bummer' or thinks of him as 'Saint Pearson'. We who support the guy are aware of his limitations, we are aware that he hasn't got us up automatically from the Champ (yet), we were all equally horrified at the terrible run we went on and we all get frustrated with him sometimes. There's the difference. The Pearson Out brigade just don't seem to be able to process his good aspects. The fact of the matter is Pearson is undoubtedly a good manager who has done a lot for the Club, and has given us more success and got us far closer to the PL than anyone else in the last decade. He deserves more respect than being dubbed 'Coco' and does in no way deserve the vitriol he gets from the dissenting voices, just because he doesn't whinge or give moronic soundbites in his post-match interviews.

 

We who support Pearson recognise that the run was terrible but believe you can't blame him 100% for it, and with that in mind, focus on the fact we were well on course to finish top 2 before the run. And so we wish to believe that with lessons learnt we can be the same team we were last season until February, but finish the job this time.

 

EDIT: I'm aware I don't speak for everyone there but that's certainly the way I see it.

 

 

Bloody good post that!

 

 

So you have managed to use your eyes in the past.

 

Arsehole refers to Beckford, who acted like one on the pitch and it would seem has been one off of it. Danns is just shit. Have you ever seen a professional footballer who can't control the ball without looking at his feet? I certainly haven't. 

 

We finished 9th with them, and 6th without them. The facts are just not on your side.

 

And no, I will be content with Pearson while he improves results whilst trimming the wage bill, whilst I enjoy his personality, and whilst he has us fighting at the top end of the table. Again you are just saying things without anything to really back them up. Just ridiculous delusions. How badly do you want to believe that pro-Pearson fans think the world of him? Take in what I am saying to you. I know he isn't fvcking Klopp, or Mourinho, or Benitez, or Sir Alex. We all know that. But he is a good manager, with a good record, and that is that.

[Mark_w]

Your suggestion that 'Danns is an arsehole' basically sums it up for me. How the fook do you know? Again, he's seemed pretty popular and well liked at the clubs he's been out on loan to.

I believe Danns is quite a character isn't he? Has his own opinions on stuff and not adverse to voicing them? Does that make him an 'arsehole'?

And yes, absolutely, at a time where we were struggling to get the ball forward quickly and to score goals, I'd have returned him to the side.

Your post sums up where you are coming from and suggests, to me, that you will remain content with Pearson until he's sacked. Then you'll probably argue that he wasn't really that good anyway.

 

But just as he doesn't know that Danns or Beckford were a bad influence, you've got no proof that they weren't. Maybe just maybe, they were a bad influence and for that reason, the manager who actually knows them got rid. Maybe, and I know it's a crazy suggestion, that's why we showed significant improvement this year without those players and the two we're talking about joined a Huddersfield side that at the time was above us in the table and ended up in a relegation battle?

Just a thought.

 

I'm not saying that's the case, but you criticize him for praising the manager over something he can't be certain of, while you criticize the manager, even though you have no idea whether or not those two players had a negative influence on the team behind the scenes.

[Babylon]

It's not bang on at all.

It misses the crucial question of WHY Beckford didn't want to be at the club. The same question as with Matt Mills.

Neither are sensational players. Both were signed for way too much money.

But both, it seems, wanted out when they were managed by Pearson. The important question is why.

I firmly believe, (without actually knowing) that Pearson most probably takes a dislike to certain players. And then bins them. If you believe the interview Mills gave after leaving the club, he was effectively shunned, ignored.

There is a big difference between being sidelined for footballing reasons than for differences of personality, character and power.

Yes, money is an important factor here... It's no surprise that Pearson wanted rid of his two biggest paid players. But again, it raises questions regarding his man management skills.

I say again, I cannot understand, in purely footballing terms, the omission of Danns and Beckford whilst, at the same time, the inclusion of Kane and a very out of sorts Drinkwater. That makes no sense to me. I CAN understand it if money was the only issue.

But once more, this type of thing concerns me in Pearson. We have two players here on big wages, it's likely that we have a job to sell them on, mainly due to wage demands. It is the role of a football manager to include them, to make them feel valued and therefore to get the best out of them. If they were both dreadful players, I wouldn't be bothered. I'd be content to see them playing in the reserves, or even to simply have their contracts terminated. But they aren't dreadful players. In fact, during our SHOCKING run last season I would have far rather seen the inclusion of Beckford for the appalling Kane and Danns for Drinkwater.

Anyone who can't see THIS must be insane IMO.

Certain aspects of Pearson's management savvy worry me. This is one of them.

I'm not going to address all of this now as it's late, but two things.

Matt Mills wanted out? You seem to be confusing Pearson not rating someone with a player wanting out.

Morgan was his replacement, remember the cries at the time that we didn't need another CB. Who was right, Pearson or those who criticised him?

Mills is currently hated by Bolton fans and Bolton want to get rid according to reports. Why? Has Freedman fallen out with him? Or does he also think he's overrated, overpaid and shit.

Why did Beckford want out? Nobody will no for sure, but funnily enough it conincided with the manager dropping him to the bench and trying replacing him with someone else.... Could it not be, that the simplest answer is actually THE answer?

Perhaps you would have had him on the bench had he not requested to leave. You cannot use something you do not know about to beat someone with.

[Guest Col city fan]

Firstly:

So you have managed to use your eyes in the past.

Arsehole refers to Beckford, who acted like one on the pitch and it would seem has been one off of it. Danns is just shit. Have you ever seen a professional footballer who can't control the ball without looking at his feet? I certainly haven't.

We finished 9th with them, and 6th without them. The facts are just not on your side.

And no, I will be content with Pearson while he improves results whilst trimming the wage bill, whilst I enjoy his personality, and whilst he has us fighting at the top end of the table. Again you are just saying things without anything to really back them up. Just ridiculous delusions. How badly do you want to believe that pro-Pearson fans think the world of him? Take in what I am saying to you. I know he isn't fvcking Klopp, or Mourinho, or Benitez, or Sir Alex. We all know that. But he is a good manager, with a good record, and that is that.

And you say I am deluded...

Firstly, Danns is not 'shit' (you do like to use your strong terms don't you..). He was one of the best players for some time in Pearson's team before he got injured. I remember him single handedly taking on Derby for example.

Secondly, Pearson's record is very average.

Both at Hull and at City, he has never been promoted out of the Championship. If you consider making the play offs a 'good record' then that's your prerogative.

Thirdly, yes he's shortened the wage bill, but he's not exactly not spent money either has he? The signing of Vardy looks a particularly shrewd bit of business....

Finally, yes we finished 6th this season, not 9th..

Well whoopy fookin do...

You try to make out that you AREN'T a Pearsonite when you clearly are.

Me? I can see both sides of the coin. He's better than the daft Swede, but I think he's failed abjectly so far this time round. No amount of your pretending to give balance will persuade me otherwise.

[indierich06]

That, I do not believe.      

 

Just who, is genuinely better? 

 

Morgan makes St Ledger look like a pub player, King, Drinkwater and James are all leagues ahead of Danns, and Nugent and Wood are both capable of hitting double figures, something which Beckford has never managed in this league.

[Babylon]

And you say I am deluded...

Firstly, Danns is not 'shit' (you do like to use your strong terms don't you..). He was one of the best players for some time in Pearson's team before he got injured. I remember him single handedly taking on Derby for example.

Secondly, Pearson's record is very average.

Both at Hull and at City, he has never been promoted out of the Championship. If you consider making the play offs a 'good record' then that's your prerogative.

Thirdly, yes he's shortened the wage bill, but he's not exactly not spent money either has he? The signing of Vardy looks a particularly shrewd bit of business....

Finally, yes we finished 6th this season, not 9th..

Well whoopy fookin do...

You try to make out that you AREN'T a Pearsonite when you clearly are.

Me? I can see both sides of the coin. He's better than the daft Swede, but I think he's failed abjectly so far this time round. No amount of your pretending to give balance will persuade me otherwise.

So Vardy 4 in 17 starts in his first season above the blue square is used to sneer about Pearson signings... Yet good old JB, 9 in 35 starts should get his 51st Chance and defended.... Even though you have previously slaughtered the bloke.

[indierich06]

Finally, yes we finished 6th this season, not 9th..

Well whoopy fookin do...

You try to make out that you AREN'T a Pearsonite when you clearly are.

Me? I can see both sides of the coin. He's better than the daft Swede, but I think he's failed abjectly so far this time round. No amount of your pretending to give balance will persuade me otherwise.

 

Not being funny Col, but you've said many times you expected us to finish 7th and that you'd be happy with the playoffs, so by your criteria he's hardly failed abjectly, has he?

 

And obviously, finishing in the playoffs is a lot, lot better than finishing outside of them.

[ealingfox]

And you say I am deluded...

Firstly, Danns is not 'shit' (you do like to use your strong terms don't you..). He was one of the best players for some time in Pearson's team before he got injured. I remember him single handedly taking on Derby for example.

Secondly, Pearson's record is very average.

Both at Hull and at City, he has never been promoted out of the Championship. If you consider making the play offs a 'good record' then that's your prerogative.

Thirdly, yes he's shortened the wage bill, but he's not exactly not spent money either has he? The signing of Vardy looks a particularly shrewd bit of business....

Finally, yes we finished 6th this season, not 9th..

Well whoopy fookin do...

You try to make out that you AREN'T a Pearsonite when you clearly are.

Me? I can see both sides of the coin. He's better than the daft Swede, but I think he's failed abjectly so far this time round. No amount of your pretending to give balance will persuade me otherwise.

 

 

What was deluded about what I said?

 

As was pointed out before, let's not go mad. He played well for a few games and then got sent off for a two-footed challenge, not because he got injured. He scored the goal in a drab 0-1 win, that doesn't constitute 'single-handedly' taking them on (now who is using strong terms?).

 

No, Nigel Clough's record is very average. Making the top 6 at all is better than average. Hull were a relegated side with no money, and he steadied the ship and kept them competitive. 

 

Then we come to a nice attempt to trivialise reality, and then more frustrating nothing statements.

 

I am pro-Pearson, when did I try to make out I wasn't? The distinction I am trying to get through to you, which you appear to have recognised before, is that although I am pro-Pearson, I don't think he's god gift or the greatest manager in history. I am getting incredibly tired of trying to explain this.

 

Now answer some of the other people who are calling you out on your inane two-faced drivel^^^^

[Mark_w]

Secondly, Pearson's record is very average.

Both at Hull and at City, he has never been promoted out of the Championship. If you consider making the play offs a 'good record' then that's your prerogative.

 

What a massively oversimplified way of looking at things. Making the Play-Offs the first time he did was a fantastic achievement, second time around it was simply him matching expectations. But when he's had a full season he's always achieved what we as fans expected of him and what Hull fans expected of him. You can't just say promotion is an achievement and nothing else is without looking at the bigger picture. You seem to be doing whatever you can to criticize Pearson today, apparently because he didn't give another chance to a player that you yourself claimed wasn't good enough a year ago, a player who said quite clearly that he didn't want to be here, a player who is pushing 30 and has never managed double figures above League One and who has an inferior record to the other options we have. It really is ridiculous.

[Guest Col city fan]

What a massively oversimplified way of looking at things. Making the Play-Offs the first time he did was a fantastic achievement, second time around it was simply him matching expectations. But when he's had a full season he's always achieved what we as fans expected of him and what Hull fans expected of him. You can't just say promotion is an achievement and nothing else is without looking at the bigger picture. You seem to be doing whatever you can to criticize Pearson today, apparently because he didn't give another chance to a player that you yourself claimed wasn't good enough a year ago, a player who said quite clearly that he didn't want to be here, a player who is pushing 30 and has never managed double figures above League One and who has an inferior record to the other options we have. It really is ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous at all. I'm simply giving balance to yours and umpteen others very one sided arguments.

I won't be brow beaten, I thought you might have known that by now, however hard you try.

I am no lover of Beckford... Perhaps the most ridiculous post on the thread would suggest that I am. But I CAN see some sort of role for the player, as I can Danns because, I tire of saying this, I believe they are both as good as some of the players we've seen in a City shirt this season.

So can others on the thread I believe?

Let me ask you (and others) one final question..

Are you looking forward with excitement to another season under Pearson? Another season of being pretty solid but probably falling away again? Another season of reverting to the hoof ball when Plan A isn't working? Another season of 4-4-2 or even worse, 4-4-3 with players played completely out of position?

Personally I'm not... Maybe that's just me.

I believe Pearson to be an average manager. Given the resources at hand (and his salary) he's done ok. Nothing more. When I predicted 7th at the start of the season that wasn't because I thought we SHOULD finish 7th but because I looked at the squad and thought that's where we'd finish. With better signings, we'd have finished higher.

Hand on heart, what with the division looking like it is, I can't for the life of me see us finishing higher this season.

But I'm not supposed to say that am I.

However, I just have..

I ain't brow beaten by those that wish to on here..