The truth about Sven

[William Boast]

 

 

Well, yeah, that part about fan power is obvious and can be used in any walk of life. However, Chelsea fans constantly sing for Di Matteo, and what did that achieve? Benitez's appointment didn't stop them from attending games or buying merchandise did it? Don't think it always work. Football is a business now, owners don't do things to please the fans.

 

With the bit I've highlighted, I don't understand what you mean. You don't even know me... The clubs marketing obviously works because people like me and you buy tickets to watch the team.

 

However, I've not been brought down to believe NP is a good manager stuff. I know he is a good manager. You've just referred too thinking for myself, well I have done in this situation and I personally believe he is a decent Championship manager, good enough for my football club. I have come to this conclusion in recent years - we've never finished below 9th under NP! However, you don't have to have the same opinon as me, in which, you don't. Thats good, thats football.

 

Yes that was a lazy argument the last part. I just said that to annoy you, actually.

 

 

A 9th placed finish would be considered par for a club operating on the 9th largest budget.

 

Also a top place finish would be par for the club with the largest budget. As you say, football is a business.

 

So do you still maintain that last season's finish was good enough? Is NP doing a good job?

 

Remember to think before you reply - try to actually understand what I'm getting at and concentrate as hard as you can and try to come back with something relevant.

[theessexfox]

My arguments are backed up with facts. Our league finish was not good enough. NP oversaw that with a very large playing budget. These are facts. Dispute them if you like. Ignore them if you like.

 

Perhaps I'm clever enough to know the difference between 'your' and 'you're' and perhaps I'm a bit above arguing with those who don't understand the difference between the two?

Despite the fact you've insisted that had it been impossible to finish 6th, NP would have been sacked. This implies that the owners' expectations were 6th. Guess where we came? 6th! I'm going to go with the owners on this one. 

[Fox92]

A 9th placed finish would be considered par for a club operating on the 9th largest budget.

 

Also a top place finish would be par for the club with the largest budget. As you say, football is a business.

 

So do you still maintain that last season's finish was good enough? Is NP doing a good job?

 

Remember to think before you reply - try to actually understand what I'm getting at and concentrate as hard as you can and try to come back with something relevant.

 

In theoretical terms, this is correct. But football doesn't work like that does it? Wolves had one of the better squads, and had a bigger budget than most, but they were relegated. Manchester City probably spent the most money again last season and didn't win anything.

 

This is what I don't really get, and I'm thinking as hard as possible. Because we didn't spend the most money. We didn't spend the second to most money. If we're going on your terms, we are about right in finishing 6th, because Cardiff, Blackburn, Hull City, Nottingham Forest and I believe, Wolverhampton Wanderers, all spent more than us!

[William Boast]

Despite the fact you've insisted that had it been impossible to finish 6th, NP would have been sacked. This implies that the owners' expectations were 6th. Guess where we came? 6th! I'm going to go with the owners on this one. 

 

Its fairly clear that the condition would have been that he would be entitled to more compensation in the event that we was sacked whilst promotion was still a possibility. I doubt if the Thais would have described a 6th place finish as good enough - but I do agree its all about means to an end.

 

At the end of the day, you need to decide if all that has gone on and what we have observed is good enough for you? Will you settle for it? For me, NP has major flaws and he has never addressed some really key issues. I'm sure he's aware of them, but he's stubborn and believes he knows best and will not reconsider. I believe this has resulted in a) his reluctance to address problem areas (ie no ball winner, awful ball retention away from home) and b) to fall out with anyone who dares question his judgement.

 

You might think this is all good enough and be prepared, despite major financial backing and gambles to trundle along in the Championship for a few years until we are no longer financially viable, Thais give up on the dream and we are left to simply rot... OR you can say NO, THIS IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

 

For me, its not good enough. If you're happy enough with it though, fair enough, pay your money, wear the colours, clap and shout and just keep repeating that tired old mantra - keep the faith, foxes never quit....

 

Not good enough for me, but for you - you decide.

[Mark_w]

A 9th placed finish would be considered par for a club operating on the 9th largest budget.

 

Also a top place finish would be par for the club with the largest budget. As you say, football is a business.

 

So do you still maintain that last season's finish was good enough? Is NP doing a good job?

 

Remember to think before you reply - try to actually understand what I'm getting at and concentrate as hard as you can and try to come back with something relevant.

 

We may have the largest budget (I'm not sure), but the only reason we may have the largest budget is because the previous regime signed a number of average players such as Danns & Beckford, as well as extending the contracts of other average players or players past their prime on similarly ridiculous wages. Those players are people that Pearson has tried to get rid of. If you disregard the wages of players who went out on loan such as Beckford, Danns, Gallagher, Wellens, we probably finished about where we should have in terms of budget. Those players got new contracts following Pearson's departure first time around, they earn too much and shouldn't be taken in to consideration when looking at the wage bill last year, because quite simply it's not Pearson's fault that they're still here. In terms of the squad that actually was at the club, I highly doubt it earned more money than a number of other clubs in the Championship.

 

Nigel Pearson was able to achieve a top six finish, whilst trying his best to get rid of those players, average players who are the reason we spend more than other clubs. You can't say that because we had the largest budget he had to get us to the top of the league, because average players were given huge contracts before he became manager of the football club.

[William Boast]

In theoretical terms, this is correct. But football doesn't work like that does it? Wolves had one of the better squads, and had a bigger budget than most, but they were relegated. Manchester City probably spent the most money again last season and didn't win anything.

 

This is what I don't really get, and I'm thinking as hard as possible. Because we didn't spend the most money. We didn't spend the second to most money. If we're going on your terms, we are about right in finishing 6th, because Cardiff, Blackburn, Hull City, Nottingham Forest and I believe, Wolverhampton Wanderers, all spent more than us!

 

Do you understand the concept of wage expenses? You appear to be working solely off of transfer fees.

 

Like I said in my post just now - its not good enough for me. It might be good enough for you - but if it is, it shows you have low expectations and standards. Do not try to pretend that a) its good enough for you and b) you have high standards. Its one or the other - and if you can't reconcile that in your mind, then try again in a few years when you've grown up a little.

[Kitchandro]

My arguments are backed up with facts. Our league finish was not good enough. NP oversaw that with a very large playing budget. These are facts. Dispute them if you like. Ignore them if you like.

 

Perhaps I'm clever enough to know the difference between 'your' and 'you're' and perhaps I'm a bit above arguing with those who don't understand the difference between the two?

 

But not the biggest? Are you backtracking now one of your 'facts' has turned out to be something that's probably not true?

 

Our finish in the league is not the disaster you make it out to be. Because actually, it's the second best finish we've had in 9 years. You know who got the best? I know you do! But also because we still could have ended up being promoted by finishing 6th. No, finishing 6th was no disgrace.

 

The run of form from February onwards wasn't good enough. I think everyone would agree with that. Then again, when you're comparing Pearson's failings with Sven's they're not even comparable. And the pathetic defence of Sven is what this thread is all about.

[theessexfox]

Its fairly clear that the condition would have been that he would be entitled to more compensation in the event that we was sacked whilst promotion was still a possibility. I doubt if the Thais would have described a 6th place finish as good enough - but I do agree its all about means to an end.

 

At the end of the day, you need to decide if all that has gone on and what we have observed is good enough for you? Will you settle for it? For me, NP has major flaws and he has never addressed some really key issues. I'm sure he's aware of them, but he's stubborn and believes he knows best and will not reconsider. I believe this has resulted in a) his reluctance to address problem areas (ie no ball winner, awful ball retention away from home) and b) to fall out with anyone who dares question his judgement.

 

You might think this is all good enough and be prepared, despite major financial backing and gambles to trundle along in the Championship for a few years until we are no longer financially viable, Thais give up on the dream and we are left to simply rot... OR you can say NO, THIS IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

 

For me, its not good enough. If you're happy enough with it though, fair enough, pay your money, wear the colours, clap and shout and just keep repeating that tired old mantra - keep the faith, foxes never quit....

 

Not good enough for me, but for you - you decide.

I'll give him another summer to try and sort out the mess left by the previous regime and to try and address the problems that you talk about.

[sphericalfox]

But not the biggest? Are you backtracking now one of your 'facts' has turned out to be something that's probably not true?

 

Our finish in the league is not the disaster you make it out to be. Because actually, it's the second best finish we've had in 9 years. You know who got the best? I know you do! But also because we still could have ended up being promoted by finishing 6th. No, finishing 6th was no disgrace.

 

The run of form from February onwards wasn't good enough. I think everyone would agree with that. Then again, when you're comparing Pearson's failings with Sven's they're not even comparable. And the pathetic vilification of Sven is what this thread is all about.

sorted 

[Kitchandro]

Do you understand the concept of wage expenses? You appear to be working solely off of transfer fees.

 

Like I said in my post just now - its not good enough for me. It might be good enough for you - but if it is, it shows you have low expectations and standards. Do not try to pretend that a) its good enough for you and b) you have high standards. Its one or the other - and if you can't reconcile that in your mind, then try again in a few years when you've grown up a little.

 

Maybe he doesn't have as high standards as you. Maybe that makes him less of a moron, too, so no shame in that.

 

Maybe it's not good enough for him. But then maybe he realises that we'd be worse off if we sacked him to replace him with....no, really, who? Which again, makes him less of a moron.

 

And thirdly he's probably not stupid enough to think Sven was better than Pearson. Which, if your presence on this thread and the nature of your comments are to be taken in to account, makes him less of a moron.

[William Boast]

But not the biggest? Are you backtracking now one of your 'facts' has turned out to be something that's probably not true?

 

Our finish in the league is not the disaster you make it out to be. Because actually, it's the second best finish we've had in 9 years. You know who got the best? I know you do! But also because we still could have ended up being promoted by finishing 6th. No, finishing 6th was no disgrace.

 

The run of form from February onwards wasn't good enough. I think everyone would agree with that. Then again, when you're comparing Pearson's failings with Sven's they're not even comparable. And the pathetic defence of Sven is what this thread is all about.

 

I believe we had the largest playing budget, but I've been called to provide proof, which I clearly cannot do without lots of extensive digging (at the very least) and even then we would end up probably without the full story. I believe transfer + wage outlay last season we likely had the largest budget. The fact that Cardiff are mentioned as potentially a similar budget (and they walked the league) just actually makes my point for me. I've used the phrase 'very large playing budget' here because some small-minded people were getting hung up on minutiae and my use of the word 'largest' so I've removed that obstacle to debate.

 

As regards Sven, he's gone, its in the past. Pearson is the current and what you describe as a pathetic defence of Sven has now become a far more pathetic defence of Pearson.

[Kitchandro]

sorted 

 

No. Have you read the opening post?

 

I wouldn't say that's someone villifying him, I'd say that's someone trying to absolve him of blame because he's a nice bloke.

[Fox92]

Do you understand the concept of wage expenses? You appear to be working solely off of transfer fees.

 

Like I said in my post just now - its not good enough for me. It might be good enough for you - but if it is, it shows you have low expectations and standards. Do not try to pretend that a) its good enough for you and b) you have high standards. Its one or the other - and if you can't reconcile that in your mind, then try again in a few years when you've grown up a little.

 

I didn't know you were taking into consideration wages to be honest. However, the only reason the wage bill is as high as it is, is because of the previous management. Like posted above, average players like Danns are on stupid money, and players who aren't good enough, such as Gallagher, are also on stupid money.

 

It doesn't manager if the manager is Pearson or Mourinho, if another club doesn't want these players, then we are stuck with them. That obviously influences the ability the current manager has to bring in players (his own players).

 

My standards aren't for LCFC to win the league, I'm more of a realist and know how difficult that task is. My expectations, in this difficult and tight league, is the top 6. Was last season, will be this season. 

 

I suggest you are the one that needs to grow up because you cannot accept my opinion and view of my own football club regardless of whether you agree with it, or not (which you don't, fair play).

[Kitchandro]

I believe we had the largest playing budget, but I've been called to provide proof, which I clearly cannot do without lots of extensive digging (at the very least) and even then we would end up probably without the full story. I believe transfer + wage outlay last season we likely had the largest budget. The fact that Cardiff are mentioned as potentially a similar budget (and they walked the league) just actually makes my point for me. I've used the phrase 'very large playing budget' here because some small-minded people were getting hung up on minutiae and my use of the word 'largest' so I've removed that obstacle to debate.

 

As regards Sven, he's gone, its in the past. Pearson is the current and what you describe as a pathetic defence of Sven has now become a far more pathetic defence of Pearson.

 

So have you read the comment above from Mark_w?

 

The wage budget is what Pearson was trying to reduce.

 

You claim the wages were not Sven's responsibility so can't be used against him, so why isn't this the case for Pearson?

 

Pearson didn't even want a lot of the players who were on high wages, he didn't even sign them.

 

Anyway, screw this, I'm off for some din-dins.

[sphericalfox]

No. Have you read the opening post?

 

I wouldn't say that's someone villifying him, I'd say that's someone trying to absolve him of blame because he's a nice bloke.

 

No I read the same dreadfully boring posters who have made their mind, and probably prior to him joining, and turn any conversation regarding his tenure into the same slagging match that occurs nearly in every managerial discussion.

[William Boast]

 

 

It doesn't manager if the manager is Pearson or Mourinho

 

Firstly, I never thought I'd see those two mentioned in the same sentence. The only similarities are that they are both football managers and both have huge egos. In one case that ego is justified, in one it is not.

 

Secondly, it very much does matter if the manager is Pearson or Mourinho! It matters a great deal.

[Corky]

Why can't they afford to sack Pearson?

[William Boast]

Why can't they afford to sack Pearson?

 

I'm not sure - but I thought that was the obstacle to him going.

 

Its fact that the owners met with a number of managerial targets so they certainly considered replacing him

 

Perhaps its a case of no one better wanted the job and its better the devil you know.

 

Maybe they genuinely think he's good.

[Fox92]

Firstly, I never thought I'd see those two mentioned in the same sentence. The only similarities are that they are both football managers and both have huge egos. In one case that ego is justified, in one it is not.

 

Secondly, it very much does matter if the manager is Pearson or Mourinho! It matters a great deal.

 

That was taken out of context though, I didn't mean that. (But of course there is a massive difference, one has won the European Cup (twice?) and is a better manager than most managers on this planet, never mind a second tier Championship manager!)

 

What I meant was, even if a top manager (like Mourinho) was appointed Leicester City manager, he would still have the same massive job as Pearson - and that is, trying to offload the overpaid players from the previous management - players we cannot get rid of, and players that contribute to our ridiculous wage bill which you quote.

[William Boast]

 

What I meant was, even if a top manager (like Mourinho) was appointed Leicester City manager, he would still have the same massive job as Pearson - and that is, trying to offload the overpaid players from the previous management - players we cannot get rid of, and players that contribute to our ridiculous wage bill which you quote.

 

Given that Pearson has inherited some players on large wages - lets use Mills and Beckford as an example, do you think it would be wise to try to involve them, get them motivated and hungry and use their abilities, since you're paying large wages anyway? These are not useless players?

Or better to alienate and ship both out (one only on loan where we continue to pay lots of wages)

 

When life gives you lemons - make lemonade - surely a good manager does the best with what he has?

For NP its always an excuse. Its not as if he hasnt been able to bring in his own players anyway is it? I'm sure his signing are not playing for free. Forget the players being paid to do nothing, why have the ones on the pitch not been up to it? Is that also Sven's fault?

[Mark_w]

Given that Pearson has inherited some players on large wages - lets use Mills and Beckford as an example, do you think it would be wise to try to involve them, get them motivated and hungry and use their abilities, since you're paying large wages anyway? These are not useless players?

Or better to alienate and ship both out (one only on loan where we continue to pay lots of wages)

 

When life gives you lemons - make lemonade - surely a good manager does the best with what he has?

For NP its always an excuse. Its not as if he hasnt been able to bring in his own players anyway is it? I'm sure his signing are not playing for free. Forget the players being paid to do nothing, why have the ones on the pitch not been up to it? Is that also Sven's fault?

 

Hang on let me think about this...

 

Option A) Accommodate average players who are inferior to players we have/had like Morgan/Keane/Wood/Nugent, just because they have been incredibly overpaid.

Option B) 'Alienate' average players who are simply no better than the alternatives we have and try as best you can to get their ridiculous wages off the wage bill so that we can look at reinvesting that money in a much more sensible manner to sign superior players.

 

Think I'll take B.

[Fox92]

Given that Pearson has inherited some players on large wages - lets use Mills and Beckford as an example, do you think it would be wise to try to involve them, get them motivated and hungry and use their abilities, since you're paying large wages anyway? These are not useless players?

Or better to alienate and ship both out (one only on loan where we continue to pay lots of wages)

 

When life gives you lemons - make lemonade - surely a good manager does the best with what he has?

For NP its always an excuse. Its not as if he hasnt been able to bring in his own players anyway is it? I'm sure his signing are not playing for free. Forget the players being paid to do nothing, why have the ones on the pitch not been up to it? Is that also Sven's fault?

 

He played Mills. He played Beckford. Neither did enough to show they were good enough, in fact, Mills has since been moved on from Bolton. What does that tell you?

[William Boast]

Hang on let me think about this...

 

Option A) Accommodate average players who are inferior to players we have/had like Morgan/Keane/Wood/Nugent, just because they have been incredibly overpaid.

Option B) 'Alienate' average players who are simply no better than the alternatives we have and try as best you can to get their ridiculous wages off the wage bill so that we can look at reinvesting that money in a much more sensible manner to sign superior players.

 

Think I'll take B.

 

You're right, thank god such footballing talents as Jamie Vardy and Jesse Lingaard could be accommodated at the expense of Jermaine Beckford - and Whitbread at the expense of Mills.

 

Hallelujah, praise be, NP really is the man!

[Guest]

You're right, thank god such footballing talents as Jamie Vardy and Jesse Lingaard could be accommodated at the expense of Jermaine Beckford - and Whitbread at the expense of Mills.

Hallelujah, praise be, NP really is the man!

Lindgard got about 10 minutes in a different position all season you plank. Hardly at the expense of Beckford.

[William Boast]

Lindgard got about 10 minutes in a different position all season you plank. Hardly at the expense of Beckford.

 

Doesn't have to be in the same position to be at the expense of another player. There are limited spaces in a squad you know?

 

Lindgard was crap though - you can't deny that. We ship on Beckford whilst still paying his wages - and bring in players like that.

 

Not defending Beckford and probably right to move him on, but it SHOULD make you think. I doubt it does as none of you lot strike me as great thinkers, but it SHOULD