Arriba Los Zorros Posted 9 February 2015 Author Posted 9 February 2015 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? Yes, because he'll blow a load of cash on journeymen who won't stay, with no long-term planning, and when he does eventually go we'll sink as we have no foundations and nothing to build upon for the future. Portsmouth - they had a few years in the Prem and look at them now.
Kitchandro Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 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. Ok then. Stay up under Pearson or go down under Mourinho?
Mark_w Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 And Mark keeps telling us that you can't judge how good a manager's legacy is until long after he's gone. Are you talking about me? If so I'd love to know when I kept telling you that. Apologies if not.
Mark_w Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Ok then. Stay up under Pearson or go down under Mourinho? If he agrees to a lengthy watertight contract that guarantees him remaining at the club, down under Mourinho.
funkyrobot Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 If there was a 'shittest poll of the week' poll, this one gets my vote
adam Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Yes, because he'll blow a load of cash on journeymen who won't stay, with no long-term planning, and when he does eventually go we'll sink as we have no foundations and nothing to build upon for the future. Portsmouth - they had a few years in the Prem and look at them now. I said until the end of the season, he wont be spending a penny.
Guest Bilo Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 I think the Thais learned a lot from the Sven debacle and don't think they'd be taken in by a shyster like Redknapp again. I imagine it'd be a young manager to replace Pearson, I genuinely wouldn't be shocked (or disappointed) if Laudrup came in should Pearson leave. He's fairly young, has only four months left on his contract in Qatar, isn't known for spending a lot of money, has Premier League experience on a similar budget, encourages attractive football and is the kind of football name who could continue building the club's profile.
Hirsty The Blue 94 Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Agree with the sentiment of most. Depending on if the right sort of manager is brought in looking to stick with the principles that have got this far then of course that's the decision, easy. If it is a quick fix who is going to **** the club up financially and rip the soul out of the club, bring in money mercanaries (basically the QPR model) then I would chose option B, as stupid as it sounds. Maybe you should do an opposite poll for Pearson haters. A) Stay up with Pearson B) Go down without him. Bet DT, Seenital etc would vote B. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Mark_w Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 If there was a 'shittest poll of the week' poll, this one gets my vote I think, 'were the owners right to sack Pearson' is probably high up there.
fleckneymike Posted 9 February 2015 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. WTF? You took a scenario, a pretty straightforward one, one deliberately created without any grey areas and twisted it and altered it so you could back Pearson. This is some messed up shit right here.
Harry - LCFC Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 But you didn't say that did you? Regardless of what you meant. None of those specifics were in the question. But they do matter don't they, even if they weren't in the question. In my mind there are certain versions of B that would be more desirable to certain versions of A. That's why I can't give a straight answer, I need to know what kind of A we'd be getting.
Guest MattP Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 What about this one? A) Stay up but owners leave B) Go down but owners stay
lestajigs Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 I think, 'were the owners right to sack Pearson' is probably high up there. Not really, over 80% of other owners would of sacked pearson by now!! And that poll was a lot more balanced than this shite
cjslcfc Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Just when I thought the forum couldn't get more ridiculous/entertaining
fleckneymike Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 But they do matter don't they, even if they weren't in the question. In my mind there are certain versions of B that would be more desirable to certain versions of A. That's why I can't give a straight answer, I need to know what kind of A we'd be getting. FFS man. The question, as barmy as it is, is specifically designed to be devoid of nuance otherwise what is already a pretty ****ing stupid question just become even more so. What do you want, a week by week breakdown of the imaginary scenarios?
Arriba Los Zorros Posted 9 February 2015 Author Posted 9 February 2015 What about this one? A) Stay up but owners leave B) Go down but owners stay B, we have one of the best / most sensible owners in the Premier league by my reckoning
lestajigs Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 What about this one? A) Stay up but owners leave B) Go down but owners stay Depends on the new owners, tbf these owners have been pretty good up to now
Arriba Los Zorros Posted 9 February 2015 Author Posted 9 February 2015 FFS man. The question, as barmy as it is, is specifically designed to be devoid of nuance otherwise what is already a pretty ****ing stupid question just become even more so. What do you want, a week by week breakdown of the imaginary scenarios? Completely wrong, I just tried to write it in an easy to understand way and should probably have elaborated. But what many people have set is what I was getting at - i.e. either short-term and possibly unsustainable quick fix, or long-term consolidation and planning
George mcfly Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 ****in great on here,civil war.16 nuggets though.unbelievable.
The Doctor Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 What about this one? A) Stay up but owners leave B) Go down but owners stay B easily - Look around at what else is out there and we've got excellent owners who I'd definitely trust the future of my club to. Survival for one season isn't important, long term stability as a prem side is what matters.
inckley fox Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 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 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. I'm not pretending that, don't put words into my mouth. I'm just pointing out that what was said was fundamentally incorrect. And it was.
lgfualol Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Had to vote A but want Pearson in charge anyway.
inckley fox Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 Completely wrong, I just tried to write it in an easy to understand way and should probably have elaborated. But what many people have set is what I was getting at - i.e. either short-term and possibly unsustainable quick fix, or long-term consolidation and planning What long-term consolidation does Pearson offer? One for which the end result is not being good enough to compete at the level we want to compete at? On what possible basis can we believe that Pearson can bounce back in one attempt, forge a side better equipped to make the step up in the process, and then keep us in the top flight?
Mark_w Posted 9 February 2015 Posted 9 February 2015 What about this one? A) Stay up but owners leave B) Go down but owners stay That's as flawed as the main poll because we don't know who we'd be getting. Most of me wants to say A, but then I look at Allam, Tan and Fawaz and weep.
Arriba Los Zorros Posted 9 February 2015 Author Posted 9 February 2015 What long-term consolidation does Pearson offer? One for which the end result is not being good enough to compete at the level we want to compete at? On what possible basis can we believe that Pearson can bounce back in one attempt, forge a side better equipped to make the step up in the process, and then keep us in the top flight? 2008-09
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.