MooseBreath Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 Appreciate the title sounds a bit drastic. I don't want Pearson to get sacked. But I thought we could have a thread containing nothing but wild guesses on what the owners are expecting this season. Personally, i think they would say they want promotion, but not that they expect promotion. Lots of people assumed Pearson would be sacked if he failed to get promotion last year, but he wasn't, probably thanks to how much he slashed the wage bill. We're in a much tougher climate now thanks to FFP, the owners can't help financially, we are effectively penniless. We've struggled at the wrong end of the table and even been relegated under similar conditions in the past. Having wealthy owners no longer gives you any guarantee that even with a good manager you will be anywhere near the top. I think Pearson will only be sacked if we're below 14th beyond Christmas.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 I was told we have that little money at the moment we couldnt afford to compensate Pearson for being sacked which is why he's still here. I still think the owners must be expecting promotion this season. They can't keep ownership of what will still be a championship side if they don't expect promotion. Unless we're top of the league or thereabouts quite soon into the season I don't see Pearson finishing the season with us. I'm not anti Pearson in anyway whatsoever, it's just my realistic take on things
Finnegan Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 If we're doing shit by November he'll go. Hopefully we won't be. If we come out of the blocks well I don't see why this squad can't be top four.
sylofox Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 I was told we have that little money at the moment we couldnt afford to compensate Pearson for being sacked which is why he's still here. I still think the owners must be expecting promotion this season. They can't keep ownership of what will still be a championship side if they don't expect promotion. Unless we're top of the league or thereabouts quite soon into the season I don't see Pearson finishing the season with us. I'm not anti Pearson in anyway whatsoever, it's just my realistic take on things We have money if needed but FFP says we can't spend it. To pay off NP and pay a new manager would probably push us over that limit. As with other clubs who are close to the limit if your manager is not performing your going to be stuck with him till his contract is up. Managers won't be getting long contracts now and won't be sacked so easy either.
Monk Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 Unless we are in the relegation zone at Christmas I can't see a change of manager happening. FFP is like a noose around the clubs neck. Compensation would be crippling and a new manager would want to build their own squad, which they couldn't.
Leicester_Numan Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 I don't think he'll be sacked, they're more likely to not renew his contract when it runs out if we fail to be promoted
wurmer Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 He won't get sacked during the season - finishing outside the top 6 means his contact won't get renewed and he'll leave by 'mutual consent'. Personally think he was 10 minutes away from the sack before we sneaked into the playoffs..
Guest Col city fan Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 He won't get sacked during the season - finishing outside the top 6 means his contact won't get renewed and he'll leave by 'mutual consent'. Personally think he was 10 minutes away from the sack before we sneaked into the playoffs.. I agree...
Babylon Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 I was told we have that little money at the moment we couldnt afford to compensate Pearson for being sacked which is why he's still here. He could have been sacked before this financial year started. As I said yesterday, if you are asked to slash costs at any company and actually end up improving results and slashing costs, the owners aren't going to be too displeased.
Guest shearfox Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 FFP is just rubbish for us, we have players on large sums who don't even play so we need to get rid before we can even think about bringing someone in. It's a bit of a mess at the moment.
Babylon Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 FFP is just rubbish for us, we have players on large sums who don't even play so we need to get rid before we can even think about bringing someone in. It's a bit of a mess at the moment. This season is going to be a pain, next season perhaps less so if we manage to meet FFP. Our greater income compared to many in the league and the owners managing to tap into lucrative foreign sponsorship will mean we are better positioned than most once we get through this part. As an example on last released accounts Forest only turned over £14m compared to our £21m. Having said that, if we continue having to pay back the owners at 8% on whatever the debt now stands at, there is a huge chunk taken out instantly.
foxfanazer Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 With the restraints of FFP will the expectations of th owners be any lower?
Babylon Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 With the restraints of FFP will the expectations of th owners be any lower? They will still want promotion... They may be more forgiving though.
MooseBreath Posted 19 July 2013 Author Posted 19 July 2013 Having said that, if we continue having to pay back the owners at 8% on whatever the debt now stands at, there is a huge chunk taken out instantly. Continue? Have "we" even started paying any of that back? I don't think so.
allen10 Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 There has been talk in the past of Pearson being on a similar wage to some of the players, so sacking him would be out of the question. I for one don't want to return to the days of the managerial revolving door at LCFC, and I think most City fans would agree.
MrSpaM Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 Sacking Pearson would have gotten us nowhere. A new manager with no money to spend and a squad of somebody else's players we can't offload because of their ridiculous wages, not exactly a recipe for success is it. Pearsons our only shot of getting out of this league and that's purely because he's had more time with the players were stuck with.
Babylon Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 Continue? Have "we" even started paying any of that back? I don't think so. I didn't think we had, but the trust said on the last accounts we had paid back over £4m in interest on their loans. See this thread towards the bottom. http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/topic/89345-thailand-rich-list/page-2
Loggy88 Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 Top 6 finish is what they will expect even without any signings. We finished 6th last season with this squad and that's why they'll expect us to finish there again. He will be sacked by Christmas if we're mid table or below. But I really want Pearson to prove the doubters wrong.
Heart-Shaped Fox Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 I actually think the owners like NP as they feel we have a good financial manager as well as a team manager unlike Sven. People might be right when they say he wouldve been sacked if not for the POs or might be if we fail this season and his contract runs out. The latter i believe might well be true, but I dont think NP is under much pressure currently from them as they understand that with FFP Sven made us a mess. Unless we are disastrously shit till around Xmas, i wouldnt get rid of Pearson as in this league form can makes all the diffrence and only takes three or four wins in a row to change things.
Tielemans63 Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 I think Pearson will only be sacked if we're below 14th beyond Christmas. I'd agree with that although I'd say anywhere outside the top 10 and I think he'll be gone. I also think if we were to suffer 4 or more losses in a row then he would be in serious danger of losing his job.
Guest Col city fan Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 Again, I'll ask the question of FFP and why some other clubs don't seem to be overly bothered? Bolton have got Beckford (I doubt he's gone there for peanuts), QPR have retained a number of players and are linked with Gary Hooper (he won't come cheap). Blackburn have retained Rhodes and have signed DJ. Are these other clubs in a better financial position to us? I thought Bolton, for instance, were skint? We seem to be wanting to massively comply with FFP whereas some other clubs, seemingly, don't seem to be as compliant. Confuses me a little this?
Danizen Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 His contract runs out at the end of the season so he'll be here until then. It would make sense to bring in a new manager (if required) at the start of next season with a clean slate.
foxfanazer Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 Again, I'll ask the question of FFP and why some other clubs don't seem to be overly bothered? Bolton have got Beckford (I doubt he's gone there for peanuts), QPR have retained a number of players and are linked with Gary Hooper (he won't come cheap). Blackburn have retained Rhodes and have signed DJ. Are these other clubs in a better financial position to us? I thought Bolton, for instance, were skint? We seem to be wanting to massively comply with FFP whereas some other clubs, seemingly, don't seem to be as compliant. Confuses me a little this? I still don't fully understand FFP if I'm honest but as you say it seems to be shackling us quite severely. Are the other clubs gambling on quick success? Are the rewards bigger than the repercussions? Like yourself I don't get it
Guest Col city fan Posted 19 July 2013 Posted 19 July 2013 I still don't fully understand FFP if I'm honest but as you say it seems to be shackling us quite severely. Are the other clubs gambling on quick success? Are the rewards bigger than the repercussions? Like yourself I don't get it Well that's it mate isn't it? Of course the rewards are huge..... And some clubs will be buoyed by parachute payments. But I thought FFP was essentially about expenditure on wages and the such like, as a proportion of the clubs trading income. QPR for instance, will probably be playing in front of crowds of 15-20k a week, yet have retained (so far) big players on big bucks.Are they banking upon immediate promotion, thus willing to take the penalty that FFP may impose? I really don't know.. I maintain I've never been convinced that we wanted rid of Beckford primarily due to his wages. I think Pearson simply doesn't rate him. However, I don't profess to be an expert on this subject.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.