Why no Pearson interview on radio Leicester

[ian_marshall]

Baffling to hear Ian on the forum say he doesn't know why the players won't speak to RL or why NP won't speak to Ian or why Ian is banned from pre match press conferences.

From what I understand, the club have made things fairly clear to them. RL have decided, as is their right, not to get someone else to interview the manager. Pearson will speak to RL, just not Ian.

Why didn't he say on air: "Yes, the manager and players have a problem with me but BBC management have taken the decision not to use someone else to conduct post match interviews." Then fans would know that RL are turning down the opportunity of hearing the manager. But that, of course, wouldn't reflect desperately well on the station.

Ian seemingly hasn't worked out why or how he's rubbed the manager, the players and the club up the wrong way over a period of years with his commentaries, interview technique, general attitude etc. The BBC deserve some blame too for not nipping things in the bud earlier. They should've been advising him where he was going wrong.

How do they resolve the situation? Here's what I would do...

The BBC should bite the bullet and get someone other than Ian (in the short term at least) to do the post match interview. It reconnects the club and the station and if the relationship thaws over a period of time, then perhaps LCFC media staff will ask the players to speak to RL again, even if it's not with Ian. That way, the fans get to hear the interviews and RL get their own content. And then, perhaps over time, Ian will be brought back into the interviewing fold.

Are the BBC bosses suggesting that only Ian can ask the necessary questions? If so, then that's a damning indictment on Jason. [by the way, BBC R Derby and BBC R Nottm get their presenter to conduct the post game interviews, rather than the commentator.] Jason, however, hasn't helped himself (IMHO) by getting swayed down the route of Ian's broadcasting style, despite private advice from people trying to help him.

RL have seriously misjudged the situation this season, they've got themselves into a mess of their own making. They can help remedy the situation but are choosing not to, which is up to them.

Saddens me enormously as I have a lot of love and affection for the station for obvious reasons. Hope it gets sorted.

PS. If the club and/or RL are reading this… I am available for mediation in this matter. Free of charge, naturally

Regards,

Mr Random Kofi Annan Silly

Great insight Geoff and thanks for sharing this with the board.

From personal experience of having been interviewed by Jason Bourne before a recent away game I think he too needs to tread very carefully. I certainly wasn't impressed with his negativity surrounding his questions nor was I pleased with his reaction when I tried to remain positive. His body language and behaviour towards me was rather rude. Also, there was no natural flow to his questioning as it was all mapped out on his clipboard and when I didn't respond as he expected he seemed to get the hump as he hadn't prepared for my response.

My immediate thoughts were that if this is the way both he and his colleague Ian Stringer conduct themselves in front of the manager and player's then I am not surprised that they refuse to engage in dialogue. I was also very surprised by how reliant he was on his prescribed questions. Is this the norm for a radio broadcaster? I ask as my job is very reliant on questioning and extracting information for my benefit but it's essential that I listen to what is being said and that I'm agile in my response otherwise I wouldn't get very far.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

Out of interest Geoff you appeared on the forum a while back, am I to assume that bridge has probably been well and truly burned by some of your comments on here? (Interview style, not picking up on how to ask questions etc.)

 

Not appeared on there this season, they clearly decided to go down a different route (ie more fans in the studio) and I see less of us anyway as I'm pretty much always at a Championship game on a Saturday so all those things in the mix it hasn't been a surprise. Hadn't really given it much thought anyway. Never got paid for going in on the show, I did it because they asked and I have a special affinity with the station.

 

The reason I try to give some background on here and on Twitter etc is because fans ask questions and they're not really getting the full picture from the Beeb themselves. As I've stated many times, I hope a resolution is found because the seriously damaged relationship (which the club feel is down to Ian's commentaries/interviews/general attitude etc) is not good for RL moving forward. It gives me no pleasure seeing it smashed to bits as I have a lot of historical love for RL. The best thing for RL is for Pearson to be sacked, assuming they continue to refuse to put someone apart from Ian up for interviews. It's a mess - what it needs is someone with big bollocks at RL to show some real leadership. All in my humble opinion.

 

I was also very surprised by how reliant he was on his prescribed questions. Is this the norm for a radio broadcaster?

 

Sometimes I ask questions off the top of my head and take it from there; sometimes I scribble notes/questions down and then add others on the fly to react to what the interviewee has just said. It's a journalistic basic really. Everyone is different though.

[Foxes_Trust]

It's about time both sides grew up, gone on to long now.

The local fans are missing out on the interviews, they need to arrange a meeting, and have their issues out once and for all, and then both act like professionals and get on with it.

 

We made contact several weeks ago (making the same point) with both the LCFC CEO and Radio Leicester's Editor via e-mail for consistency of message to both parties telling them to sort it out. Within this we stated "Both the BBC and King Power are well respected organisations, which we would have expected to quickly resolve any differences that their respective employees may have".

 

The LCFC response was to hide behind "contractual" elements, whereas Radio Leicester said they had been seeking a meeting for over a month (albeit this ran over the Christmas period) without success.

 

Our e-mails concluded  "we seek assurance from you (LCFC CEO/ RL Editor) that every step is being taken from your side to re-establish full communication with the fan base via Radio Leicester airwaves"

[RoboFox]

The reason I try to give some background on here and on Twitter etc is because fans ask questions and they're not really getting the full picture from the Beeb themselves. As I've stated many times, I hope a resolution is found because the seriously damaged relationship (which the club feel is down to Ian's commentaries/interviews/general attitude etc) is not good for RL moving forward. It gives me no pleasure seeing it smashed to bits as I have a lot of historical love for RL. The best thing for RL is for Pearson to be sacked, assuming they continue to refuse to put someone apart from Ian up for interviews. It's a mess - what it needs is someone with big bollocks at RL to show some real leadership. All in my humble opinion.

 

Just out of interest, have you expressed your views directly to Ian Stringer since this has all transpired? You both seem to have a decent working relationship from listening to the Football Forum last season, and you'd think he'd appreciate the objective opinion of a colleague.

 

Having said that, we know both Stringer and Bourne are at least partly active on this forum as well, so I'm sure they've seen it all anyway.

 

As others have said, it's a shame. The local station should be able to give fans the best insight into the club, and as things stand, that just isn't happening.

[MHC]

Can someone please inform me why Pearson doesn't speak to radio Leicester? I very rarely listen as I prefer to attend games or watch them through streams. Damn you sky sports you biased c#nts.

[Collymore]

I also think Stringer's mind is warped by the people who call in. Here's my theory:

I find people who ring into radio stations bizarre creatures. I never meet anybody in life who would do it, but they exist as we hear them daily. They get weirder as the station gets smaller though...

Take talksport for instance. You'll get guys rininging in who talk to Gough and Durham as if it's a drug and they need their hit "thanks for taking my call, great show by the way...

Like me please" I find that person weird. Imagine driving home with a work colleague and he/she said "hold on a minute, I'm just going to call talksport and mention what's on my mind" that's super weird isn't it?

Now take the people who call in after the game on RL. Most of these people struggle to work their phone let alone give a coherent logical argument. I mean some of the things people come out with are just plain ridiculous. Stinger will they collate all this shit and take it to Pearson.

"Summarise that one Nigel?"

"errrrrrrrrm we didn't make use of the ball as well as we have in previous games. Generic sentence two..."

"some fans have questioned your tactics today Nigel, how do you respond to them?"

there's the problem right there. Ian has taken all of the weird people's comments who have rang in and fed them to Nigel. Add to this Nigel is probably at his most vulnerable emotionally and hasn't got anything left for Ian.

P.S. I know there are some normal people who ring in as we always say "wow that person actually talked sense" so I mean not to offend you if you are that person.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

Just out of interest, have you expressed your views directly to Ian Stringer since this has all transpired? You both seem to have a decent working relationship from listening to the Football Forum last season, and you'd think he'd appreciate the objective opinion of a colleague.

 

I have never had a problem personally with Ian and still don't. I used to offer advice in the past but he chose to do his own thing, which he quite entitled to, so I stopped. He's not asked me for my professional advice in a long time, again which is his prerogative. Ian does things his way, he's got a very thick skin and probably doesn't care what anyone else thinks anyway as he's very driven as an individual. He sticks to his guns with his commentary style, the way he deals with manager/players - not the way I'd do it but that's not to say my way is better, just different. If I thought anyone would take on board constructive criticism/advice then I would willingly pass them on. I did recently pass on some constructive criticism/advice to someone relatively new to full time sports broadcasting and they effectively "grassed me up" so even when you try and help, it can get thrown back in your face. Lesson learned.

 

I was 20-23 when I did the same job and was lucky to have Neville Foulger as a sounding board; he offered me so much help and advice it was untrue. I was wet behind the ears and needed guiding. We all need a bit of guidance; I'm still open to anyone giving me constructive criticism/advice now.

 

Can someone please inform me why Pearson doesn't speak to radio Leicester? I very rarely listen as I prefer to attend games or watch them through streams. Damn you sky sports you biased c#nts.

 

Have you not read this thread?

 

I find people who ring into radio stations bizarre creatures. 

Now take the people who call in after the game on RL. Most of these people struggle to work their phone let alone give a coherent logical argument. I mean some of the things people come out with are just plain ridiculous. Stinger will they collate all this shit and take it to Pearson.

"Summarise that one Nigel?"

"errrrrrrrrm we didn't make use of the ball as well as we have in previous games. Generic sentence two..."

"some fans have questioned your tactics today Nigel, how do you respond to them?"

there's the problem right there. Ian has taken all of the weird people's comments who have rang in and fed them to Nigel. Add to this Nigel is probably at his most vulnerable emotionally and hasn't got anything left for Ian.

 

Pearson is not a fan of journalists "hiding" behind "the fans say this and that" blah blah. Journalists are there to ask fair and balanced questions without any agenda and Pearson has no problem with that.

 

You are not there as a fan, you are there as a journalist. You ask the right questions; questions the fans would be interested in yes but not blatantly on their behalf.

[Raj]

GEOFF WE FOOKING LOVE YOU!!!

[UpTheLeagueFox]

GEOFF WE FOOKING LOVE YOU!!!

 

Are you drunk or something? 

[Raj]

Are you drunk or something? 

 

Not drunk ...just abit happy!  :nuge:

[ElusiveEd]

Lets ask NP to come on here once a week and answer fans questions instead.

 

(Is there an emoticon for tongue in cheek comment?)

[Rob1742]

We made contact several weeks ago (making the same point) with both the LCFC CEO and Radio Leicester's Editor via e-mail for consistency of message to both parties telling them to sort it out. Within this we stated "Both the BBC and King Power are well respected organisations, which we would have expected to quickly resolve any differences that their respective employees may have".

The LCFC response was to hide behind "contractual" elements, whereas Radio Leicester said they had been seeking a meeting for over a month (albeit this ran over the Christmas period) without success.

Our e-mails concluded "we seek assurance from you (LCFC CEO/ RL Editor) that every step is being taken from your side to re-establish full communication with the fan base via Radio Leicester airwaves"

I really don't understand where you get the idea from that you can email them and tell them to "sort it out" and you think you will get a desired result.

Fōøtbâłł trusts play a part in certain football clubs, and may play a part in ours one day. But I am ptetty sure that you engaging with them in that manner will be creating a divide between the two parties and will be a reason why you are quite far apart from the club.

In my opinion, you need senior members in your group that can engage. You appear a very wooden organisation and is a reason why there is a lack of closeness.

[VLC86]

I did recently pass on some constructive criticism/advice to someone relatively new to full time sports broadcasting and they effectively "grassed me up" so even when you try and help, it can get thrown back in your face. Lesson learned.

Definitely not any lines to read between here, The person in question sounds as delightful as Stringer.

[artursteppe]

Lets ask NP to come on here once a week and answer fans questions instead.

 

(Is there an emoticon for tongue in cheek comment?)

I've got some questions for him, but they would be similar to the ones Stringer asks. Anyway, has anyone though that Pearson does not want to answer questions because he can't? By that I mean he may not know the answers, he could be tactically inept, picks random players ( maybe teacher's pets and 'goody goodys' ), maybe he is too dim and just doesn't know what he is doing. What is true is the situation that I have not yet come across a post or a person who can explain Pearson's train of thought last week yet, which seems to give this post some credence.

[The Doctor]

I've got some questions for him, but they would be similar to the ones Stringer asks. Anyway, has anyone though that Pearson does not want to answer questions because he can't? By that I mean he may not know the answers, he could be tactically inept, picks random players ( maybe teacher's pets and 'goody goodys' ), maybe he is too dim and just doesn't know what he is doing. What is true is the situation that I have not yet come across a post or a person who can explain Pearson's train of thought last week yet, which seems to give this post some credence.

Because you've ignored all the posts explaining it, Stoke have a slow defence but one still physically quite strong (less so with shawcross out, but he went in the warm up, would have been too late to change) meaning vardys threat would have been better than ulloas. Obviously Kramaric is just getting back up to match fitness, leaving Nugent and Vardy. We've only got two fit cms so that picks itself, although 3 in the centre would have been better, we didn't have a third person to play there. The only thing I can't understand is Lawrence on instead of Albrighton.

[Richmondfox]

I've got some questions for him, but they would be similar to the ones Stringer asks. Anyway, has anyone though that Pearson does not want to answer questions because he can't? By that I mean he may not know the answers, he could be tactically inept, picks random players ( maybe teacher's pets and 'goody goodys' ), maybe he is too dim and just doesn't know what he is doing. What is true is the situation that I have not yet come across a post or a person who can explain Pearson's train of thought last week yet, which seems to give this post some credence.

You should've saved this for next Mondays phone in.

[BigMicky]

Because you've ignored all the posts explaining it, Stoke have a slow defence but one still physically quite strong (less so with shawcross out, but he went in the warm up, would have been too late to change) meaning vardys threat would have been better than ulloas. Obviously Kramaric is just getting back up to match fitness, leaving Nugent and Vardy. We've only got two fit cms so that picks itself, although 3 in the centre would have been better, we didn't have a third person to play there. The only thing I can't understand is Lawrence on instead of Albrighton.

Makes perfect sense to me. Only reason I can think of for leaving Albrighton out may have been due to his response at being dropped?

[artursteppe]

Because you've ignored all the posts explaining it, Stoke have a slow defence but one still physically quite strong (less so with shawcross out, but he went in the warm up, would have been too late to change) meaning vardys threat would have been better than ulloas. Obviously Kramaric is just getting back up to match fitness, leaving Nugent and Vardy. We've only got two fit cms so that picks itself, although 3 in the centre would have been better, we didn't have a third person to play there. The only thing I can't understand is Lawrence on instead of Albrighton.

So Pearson has been answering questions on this site then, and I thought it was the fans who came on here. I was under the impression that this thread was about Pearson not giving answers or interviews to Stringer.

[kingcarr21]

I've got some questions for him, but they would be similar to the ones Stringer asks. Anyway, has anyone though that Pearson does not want to answer questions because he can't? By that I mean he may not know the answers, he could be tactically inept, picks random players ( maybe teacher's pets and 'goody goodys' ), maybe he is too dim and just doesn't know what he is doing. What is true is the situation that I have not yet come across a post or a person who can explain Pearson's train of thought last week yet, which seems to give this post some credence.

Theres plenty of posts that would suggest the reasoning behind his train of thought. The Doctor has summarised what myself and others have been saying the last couple of days.

 

What i dont get is everyone moaning 'Why didnt we start with Ulloa and Kramaric' and questioning Pearson for it. Did anyone see how we performed when they replaced Nuge and Vardy? We were bad with Nuge and Vards but even worse when Ulloa and Kramaric came on. Ulloa was ineffective and Kramaric was obviously not match fit, he huffed and puffed but ultimately he was quiet because Stoke marked Ulloa so well he was feeding off scraps and having to make his own chances.

 

So Pearson picked his team based on the opposition. It was a close game, both teams were poor and one bit of quality decided the game. Close fought game, you win some and you lose some and thats it. Really is no need for the criticism Pearson is getting. The fact that we were worse when the subs were made shows he started the game with the right personnel.

[The Doctor]

So Pearson has been answering questions on this site then, and I thought it was the fans who came on here. I was under the impression that this thread was about Pearson not giving answers or interviews to Stringer.

 

No, he's not. What you said was:

 

I have not yet come across a post or a person who can explain Pearson's train of thought last week yet

 

Which is untrue - myself, Babylon, King Carr and others have repeatedly explained why it seemed sensible to go for Vardy over Ulloa.

[nettle]

Theres plenty of posts that would suggest the reasoning behind his train of thought. The Doctor has summarised what myself and others have been saying the last couple of days.

What i dont get is everyone moaning 'Why didnt we start with Ulloa and Kramaric' and questioning Pearson for it. Did anyone see how we performed when they replaced Nuge and Vardy? We were bad with Nuge and Vards but even worse when Ulloa and Kramaric came on. Ulloa was ineffective and Kramaric was obviously not match fit, he huffed and puffed but ultimately he was quiet because Stoke marked Ulloa so well he was feeding off scraps and having to make his own chances.

So Pearson picked his team based on the opposition. It was a close game, both teams were poor and one bit of quality decided the game. Close fought game, you win some and you lose some and thats it. Really is no need for the criticism Pearson is getting. The fact that we were worse when the subs were made shows he started the game with the right personnel.

The reason some fans are criticising Pearson is because we played well against villa and won. They say never change a winning side bar players being injured but Pearson decided to pay a team to counter act Stoke. Why can't we play to our strength's and take the game to the opposition which in a way we have recently and had some success.

[Babylon]

I also think Stringer's mind is warped by the people who call in. Here's my theory:

I find people who ring into radio stations bizarre creatures. I never meet anybody in life who would do it, but they exist as we hear them daily. They get weirder as the station gets smaller though...

Take talksport for instance. You'll get guys rininging in who talk to Gough and Durham as if it's a drug and they need their hit "thanks for taking my call, great show by the way...

Like me please" I find that person weird. Imagine driving home with a work colleague and he/she said "hold on a minute, I'm just going to call talksport and mention what's on my mind" that's super weird isn't it?

Now take the people who call in after the game on RL. Most of these people struggle to work their phone let alone give a coherent logical argument. I mean some of the things people come out with are just plain ridiculous. Stinger will they collate all this shit and take it to Pearson.

"Summarise that one Nigel?"

"errrrrrrrrm we didn't make use of the ball as well as we have in previous games. Generic sentence two..."

"some fans have questioned your tactics today Nigel, how do you respond to them?"

there's the problem right there. Ian has taken all of the weird people's comments who have rang in and fed them to Nigel. Add to this Nigel is probably at his most vulnerable emotionally and hasn't got anything left for Ian.

P.S. I know there are some normal people who ring in as we always say "wow that person actually talked sense" so I mean not to offend you if you are that person.

 

Said almost the same myself a while back. Hiding behind "asking the questions the fans want to know" is a one way ticket to being a shit football journalist, especially when the ones Stinrger interacts with are rather more moronic that your average football fan.

[Babylon]

The reason some fans are criticising Pearson is because we played well against villa and won. They say never change a winning side bar players being injured but Pearson decided to pay a team to counter act Stoke. Why can't we play to our strength's and take the game to the opposition which in a way we have recently and had some success.

Well firstly there is a large group of people on here that moan at Pearson for NOT changing winning teams. Do a search, it really is there so the bloke just cannot win.

 

Secondly, he was trying to play to our strength that he thought would trouble the opposition. Just as he did against Liverpool where he dropped Ulloa and we got a very good performance.

 

It didn't work this time, but it has worked in the past. I think the whole Ulloa and Albrighton thing has been massively overblown, it's clear why it was done whether you agree with it or not. The key thing (for me) was the lack of any CM's to bring on to change the formation, which is what we did at Stoke last time to change the game.

[Vlad the Fox]

Lets ask NP to come on here once a week and answer fans questions instead.

 

(Is there an emoticon for tongue in cheek comment?)

Not such a daft idea, other forums and fanzines have had player and manager interviews before. I'm sure I've also read on here in the past that there is a couple of journalist/media students on the forum, maybe they could get in touch with the club for the occasional interview and post it up here, they'd get something good for their portfolio as well as the experience, the forum would get the interview and would also pass on any constructive criticism to the reporter.

[kingcarr21]

The reason some fans are criticising Pearson is because we played well against villa and won. They say never change a winning side bar players being injured but Pearson decided to pay a team to counter act Stoke. Why can't we play to our strength's and take the game to the opposition which in a way we have recently and had some success.

Just because we won at Villa doesnt mean we will beat Stoke who are a completely different outfit. From what i could see we did play to our strengths. That strength being the pace of nuge and vardy being the most likely tactic to be able to beat Stoke considering our lack of CM's which was what won us the game at there place. Pearson needs to be diverse with his team selection. We pick the same team week in week out in the prem the opposition will piss themselves laughing. The only reason we won so comfortably with an unchanged team last season was simply down to our players clearly being too good for the poor division. The prem is a completely different ball game.

 

Again i draw to the fact that Ulloa who started against Villa was piss poor when he came on against Stoke. Does this not tell you that playing Ulloa over Vardy would have more than likely made us play even worse than what we did? Does this not show that in fact Pearson knew exactly what he was doing when choosing his personnel? When i first saw the team sheet i was surprised that Ulloa wasnt in the starting line up. But when he came on he showed everyone why Pearson went with Nuge and Vardy. So clearly he knows alot more about football than me and alot of other fans who constantly question him. Its getting really sad that everyone moans when we lose to the point that after a run of games where we played well and kept clean sheets that ONE narrow defeat and everyone jumps on Pearsons back to the point they want him sacked.

 

So i say get a f****** grip and accept that you win some and you lose some, take it on the chin and move onto the next game and support the team through thick and thin.