Bob Weasel Fox Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Anyone who voted for go down with Pearson is a complete moron who needs to stay far far away from this club.This
foxfanazer Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 What, what have I done for the past few months apart from talking sense. Obviously got the wrong guy mate. Put the smileys in to avoid this reply. Thought you'd sense it was joke. Oh well
AKCJ Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Depends. Who comes in to manage us at the end of the season? Based on the list the bookies put together in the couple of hours in between the rumours the other night, i'd genuinely prefer to go down and start again. Stay up and keep Nige is probably the most realistic option though.
inckley fox Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 This is totally laughable. One of the silliest things I've ever seen. There is no sensible argument that you'd forego a manager capable of getting results at Premier League level, getting them, and keeping us up, in favour of a manager who has shown himself not to be capable, who subsequently will get us relegated. Just because, against all probability and the vast bulk of historical evidence, there's a chance he might accumulate a better squad to go up with next time around, and be a better manager when he gets there. Or, do you just really, really like Nigel Pearson for some other, inexplicable reason, and therefore want him to stay? And before we start on the old 'look what he's done for us' argument (interestingly some of these people don't want to apply it to Lineker, in some cases not even O'Neill, in spite of the fact that our success and failure from here on in has nothing to do with either), none of that, absolutely none, goes any way to suggesting he will ever make a better fist of management in the top flight next time around. How hard can it be to understand that a manager, a good one, can have his limitations and - from that point onwards - it's wise to find somebody better-equipped to take on the challenge?
kingfox Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Just a hunch but I reckon I'd get banned if I said that. But he isn't spoiling a thread, he is making it better.
Guest MattP Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Depends. A young stable manager who is hungry and successful of course stay up. If it was Harry Redknapp or something to scrape up for one season then probably ruin us I'll take the relegation now and try and do a West Brom/Newcastle rather than take the chance of a Wigan/Portsmouth.
Kitchandro Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Most embarrassing thread of the lot. Whoever votes B is not a real supporter, end of story.
inckley fox Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Depends. Who comes in to manage us at the end of the season? Based on the list the bookies put together in the couple of hours in between the rumours the other night, i'd genuinely prefer to go down and start again. Stay up and keep Nige is probably the most realistic option though. If they come in and keep us up then their achievement will be great in its own right. Surely you'd feel that man, even if he was somebody ridiculous (and let's face it, you don't get much more ridiculous in the eyes of the wider footballing world than Pearson right now) would have earned his chance? And he would have earned it at the level we inspire to play at, as opposed to a lower level where your achievements rarely correspond to success in the Premiership.
Mark_w Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Most embarrassing thread of the lot. Whoever votes B is not a real supporter, end of story. I'm afraid you don't get to decide who is a real supporter.
Matt Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 I've always said even if we go down we shouldn't sack pearson, unless he starts doing silly things, he's starting to do silly things....
Harry - LCFC Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Although initially I could understand why people might think B is a ridiculous answer it really does depend on who we'd get in. If we're better in the long term by going down with a plan to get up and get it right in future then I'd prefer to go down that route. Staying up for one season is no good on it's own. There must be a strategy for the future.
Guest Bilo Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Of the two options, it simply has to be Option A. If we manage to stay up without Pearson, we'll be in a great position to find a manager who could help us to stay up and actually kick on. You could look at Swansea under Laudrup and then Monk after Rodgers left as an example. European football, turning in a profit and have just sold a player for nearly £30m. Stoke sacked Pulis and got in Mark Hughes, they will also stay up comfortably. I like Pearson, but I have to question whether he's the right man at this point. Let's not forget that if we do go down; we may be forced into Option D, which would be to go down without Pearson and be well and truly back at square one.
The Doctor Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Matt has pretty much nailed it - if sacking pearson would result in a young and talented manager with a long term vision for the club, I'd go for it, if it would result in an old carthorse like Redknapp coming in, keeping us up but then sending us spiralling into the shitter next season and beyond that, stick with Pearson and try to bounce back.
Dan Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Depends. A young stable manager who is hungry and successful of course stay up. If it was Harry Redknapp or something to scrape up for one season then probably ruin us I'll take the relegation now and try and do a West Brom/Newcastle rather than take the chance of a Wigan/Portsmouth. Pretty much my thoughts, but went for A. Anyone who keeps us up from here has got something about them. Redknapp wouldn't have a prayer of keeping us up.
inckley fox Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Depends. A young stable manager who is hungry and successful of course stay up. If it was Harry Redknapp or something to scrape up for one season then probably ruin us I'll take the relegation now and try and do a West Brom/Newcastle rather than take the chance of a Wigan/Portsmouth. Well, Redknapp didn't scrape QPR up, he got relegated, and didn't ruin QPR because they came straight back (and are doing better than us now). And Mark keeps telling us that you can't judge how good a manager's legacy is until long after he's gone, so why would we make a judgement now based on whether a hypothetical future appointment, leading to a hypothetical future survival, might hypothetically become a failure sometime further in the future? Our aim right now is to stay up. The man who achieved that, if he did, would obviously look far more likely to keep us up next season (if he'd won the 7 games out of 14 he's likely to need to win) than Pearson (with his 4 wins in 24). It must be the easiest decision ever to vote on. What, based on past evidence, would we gain from keeping Pearson if we knew that his replacement would achieve our immediate aims, and stand a better chance of achieving our long-term aims?
inckley fox Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 I'm afraid you don't get to decide who is a real supporter. Well, you'd rather your side get relegated just to keep a failing manager. Even though, in this hypothetical, the manager would automatically have done much better with us in the Premier League. I'm with him on this one, I'm afraid. I believe you are putting your affection for the manager way, way ahead of any affection you might have for the club.
Arriba Los Zorros Posted 9 February 2015 Author Posted 9 February 2015 1. Stay up with Nigel Pearson 2. Stay up with Eddie Howe (who wouldn't come) 3. Stay up with Martin O'Neill (who wouldn't come) - and that's probably based more on the feel good factor than common sense 4. Go down with Nigel Pearson 5. Stay up with any other remotely likely candidate for the job. So I voted down with Pearson. I genuinely think that would be better for the club than a shit manager pulling off a fluke and keeping us up for one season, only for them to take us down or a return to the managerial merry-go-round when we're in a relegation scrap next year. Of course if someone were to come in and surprise me long term, great. But I don't think that will happen, and Nigel not getting the full season would leave a very bitter taste in the mouth anyway. Thanks Mark, this is what I meant - re read what I wrote and it sounds ridiculous but this is what i meant, down with Pearson > stay up with Redknapp for instance
Kitchandro Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 I'm afraid you don't get to decide who is a real supporter. I get to decide what I want.
adam Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Thanks Mark, this is what I meant - re read what I wrote and it sounds ridiculous but this is what i meant, down with Pearson > stay up with Redknapp for instance so if we appointed Redknapp until the end of the season(which we wont) and he wins 6 in a row and keeps us up, your saying you wouldn't want that?
Kitchandro Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Thanks Mark, this is what I meant - re read what I wrote and it sounds ridiculous but this is what i meant, down with Pearson > stay up with Redknapp for instance But you didn't say that did you? Regardless of what you meant. None of those specifics were in the question.
Guest Bilo Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Well, Redknapp didn't scrape QPR up, he got relegated, and didn't ruin QPR because they came straight back (and are doing better than us now). And Mark keeps telling us that you can't judge how good a manager's legacy is until long after he's gone, so why would we make a judgement now based on whether a hypothetical future appointment, leading to a hypothetical future survival, might hypothetically become a failure sometime further in the future? Our aim right now is to stay up. The man who achieved that, if he did, would obviously look far more likely to keep us up next season (if he'd won the 7 games out of 14 he's likely to need to win) than Pearson (with his 4 wins in 24). It must be the easiest decision ever to vote on. What, based on past evidence, would we gain from keeping Pearson if we knew that his replacement would achieve our immediate aims, and stand a better chance of achieving our long-term aims? Finishing 22 points behind the league leaders having massively outspent them, 13 points behind a team who spent 77p and an out-of-date pack of Quavers on players and needing a last minute winner in a play-off final after being comprehensively outplayed isn't just scraping it, it is spectacular good fortune. Let's not beat about the bush here, QPR were probably the luckiest team of the last five years to win promotion. They're two points better off than us having spent significantly more in wages, and have lost 11 away games on the spin. They have all of their hardest home games to come and Austin, the one man who's keeping them off the bottom this season so far, is out of form. Let's not pretend QPR have been a roaring success.
Mark_w Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Well, you'd rather your side get relegated just to keep a failing manager. Even though, in this hypothetical, the manager would automatically have done much better with us in the Premier League. I'm with him on this one, I'm afraid. I believe you are putting your affection for the manager way, way ahead of any affection you might have for the club. No I'm not, read the entirety of my original post. I am arguing in favour of what I see as the best option for the future of the club. You may disagree with my opinion, but I can assure that it is based on what I believe is best for Leicester City Football Club.
Arriba Los Zorros Posted 9 February 2015 Author Posted 9 February 2015 Matt has pretty much nailed it - if sacking pearson would result in a young and talented manager with a long term vision for the club, I'd go for it, if it would result in an old carthorse like Redknapp coming in, keeping us up but then sending us spiralling into the shitter next season and beyond that, stick with Pearson and try to bounce back. glad some people are starting to talk sense (more eloquently than I can)
Guest MattP Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Well, Redknapp didn't scrape QPR up, he got relegated, and didn't ruin QPR because they came straight back (and are doing better than us now). And Mark keeps telling us that you can't judge how good a manager's legacy is until long after he's gone, so why would we make a judgement now based on whether a hypothetical future appointment, leading to a hypothetical future survival, might hypothetically become a failure sometime further in the future? Our aim right now is to stay up. The man who achieved that, if he did, would obviously look far more likely to keep us up next season (if he'd won the 7 games out of 14 he's likely to need to win) than Pearson (with his 4 wins in 24). It must be the easiest decision ever to vote on. What, based on past evidence, would we gain from keeping Pearson if we knew that his replacement would achieve our immediate aims, and stand a better chance of achieving our long-term aims? Sometimes managers produce a very short term bounce that doesn't last. It's quite common in football. Remember Rob Kelly? It happened under him and we gave him the job permanently on the basis of a couple of good months, that decision then started us towards the Levein/Holloway etc era. Also important to look at the last two months of the season, that's 8-9 fixtures there that are far easier than any other two months of the season. Whoever is in charge for those two months should garner a higher points average than over the other 30 odd games as the standard of opposition decreases in comparison.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.