Honestly..who can defend Pearson now

[Parafox]

And yet if he'd done the correct thing and reported the fan to a steward he'd have been accused of being sensitive and should take the criticism.

 

And you know this how?

 

He thinks he's above this.

 

He's Nigel Pearson.

 

In bold... I thought he could "handle himself".

 

He's an oaf.

[MC Prussian]

I'm a teacher. I have to put up all the time with people not being very nice about me while I'm doing my job. If I were to call one of them a '****'. drop an 'f' bomb, refuse to speak to their parents, throttle one of them, go on about how hard I was or yell 'f off and die' because one of them said something horrid, then I'd be fired in a moment. I might just about get away with one of the above if I was in a blisteringly good run of GCSE or A Level results, but probably not. The same requirements exist in every other profession which involves working with the public, you're expected to be able to cope with the abuse. Just like Pearson is expected to cope with it, and just like he may well get fired for failing to.

 

I'm not saying it's fine to shout abuse from the stands, but his reaction was simply unprofessional. And he wasn't receiving abuse from that journalist today, was he? They were awkward, unpleasant, provocative questions, but it wasn't abuse.

 

He is behaving like a man who has lost his composure and can no longer cope. Unfortunately his results also suggest he can't cope. Both seem to point to the same overbearing truth - that he can't deal with the pressures of management at this level. 

Being a teacher is hardly comparable to being a football manager, is it? The definition of "success" takes place on another level, you have infinitely more people criticizing you or potentially being critical of you and your job. You are under (constant) media scrutiny - the rags in the UK are particularly unforgiving. You're also competing with a different amount of suitable competitors in a different market with different rules - with football being a lot more erratic than a schooling environment.

 

Also, as a teacher you're dealing with a different "clientele" - with kids who're supposed to learn something from you (hopefully, without overly acting as a surrogate for parents) and kids who need guidance on the way to becoming an adult. I do hope they get that from you.

[Monsell1976]

Pearson has come across as a bully this season, anybody who dares ask questions he doesn't like is either abused or he plays childish games and refuses to talk to them.

All he has achieved today, is get the national press after his blood.

His arrogants and antics this season have embarrassed the club, and with the results he's achieved, he should have been sacked a long time ago.

The owners bring monks into the ground, talk about respect and honour, I would be surprised if this idiot doesn't get sacked over the next couple of days.

He can take his arrogants and bully boy tactics to a league one side, as I doubt he will ever work in the premier league again, he's proved he can't handle the pressure, and cannot manage at this level

[Parafox]

Since when has a Premier League football managers job role been defined as working with the public or working in a public service industry? The conduct of a teacher and a football manager are not similar in anyway shape or form. Comparing the conduct of a football manager with a public servant is completely ridiculous and is fundamentally wrong. 

 

Because we, the fans, pay our money to go to the games?

 

A football ground is a public place to which we have access by paying to be there?

 

A football manager is always in the public eye?

 

Their wages are paid by us buying (season) tickets?

 

You really are naive (that means lacking in undesrtanding due to inexperience or immaturity).

[GingerrrFox]

Of course a football manager is required to deal with the public, and of course duties of care and standards of public behaviour are comparable regardless of the profession; but when the role is one which involves management and dignified public behaviour, then it's especially easy to compare it to other professions.

 

And not only in public service and pay. What about private school teachers, then? Newspaper journalists and editors? Shop owners? Bankers? All of them have a duty to behave appropriately, all of them have to deal with the public at times even though they are privately employed, and all of them abide by a code of conduct in doing so, all of them get dragged through the mud when it's perceived that they are not meeting the required professional standards. A football manager is exactly the same, and football managers also get fired because of their professional conduct.

 

This is why Pearson manages to make himself as many headlines as he does. 

 

But what worries me isn't the poor professional conduct - and it really is a silly argument to suggest that his behaviour has been as dignified as is the norm in football management - but rather the picture it seems to paint of a man who can't cope with the pressures of football at this level. If his results suggested otherwise, then it would be meaningless, but they're not, they paint exactly the same picture. That's why it's relevant.

 

How many times does Nigel Pearson come in to contact with the general public in a professional capacity? The answer is he doesn't. On a day to day working basis he comes into contact with others employed by the same private company whether that be a receptionist at the training ground, one of his first team players or the kit man. He does not work in the public sector. The training ground is closed off limits to the general public. On match days it's impossible for anybody to come into any form of close contact with the manager of Leicester City except for representatives of the opposition football club (again a private company), select representatives of the Premier League (another private company) or members of the media (even then he only speaks to those that he wants to and bans those he doesn't wish to speak to). Nigel Pearson is subject to the working conditions placed on him by the private company he works for, he's not a public servant employed by the government. He doesn't come directly into contact with children, who are seen as "vulnerable" in the eyes of the law. As for your comment regarding bankers and journalist's being dragged through the mud, only when they have broken the law. Last time I checked calling someone a **** isn't breaking the law. 

[GingerrrFox]

Because we, the fans, pay our money to go to the games?

 

A football ground is a public place to which we have access by paying to be there?

 

A football manager is always in the public eye?

 

Their wages are paid by us buying (season) tickets?

 

You really are naive (that means lacking in undesrtanding due to inexperience or immaturity).

 

So Nigel Pearson comes into direct contact with fans in a working capacity does he? On a daily basis from Monday to Saturday? Working in the public sector means you come in direct contact with members of the general public. Something which you as a paramedic do on a daily basis. Nigel Pearson doesn't even come into contact with fans in the actual 90 minutes on a Saturday. It's impossible to come face to face with the manager of Leicester City on match day, let alone at the training ground. As for the wages are paid by us, no they aren't. They are paid by the owners of the football club and with the amount of money coming from TV rights in the modern era, they would manage just fine with an empty stadium. 

[inckley fox]

Being a teacher is hardly comparable to being a football manager, is it? The definition of "success" takes place on another level, you have infinitely more people criticizing you or potentially being critical of you and your job. You are under (constant) media scrutiny - the rags in the UK are particularly unforgiving. You're also competing with a different amount of suitable competitors in a different market with different rules - with football being a lot more erratic than a schooling environment.

 

Also, as a teacher you're dealing with a different "clientele" - with kids who're supposed to learn something from you (hopefully, without overly acting as a surrogate for parents) and kids who need guidance on the way to becoming an adult. I do hope they get that from you.

 

A lot of those requirements also apply to a football manager, you know! The players are supposed to 'learn something' from Pearson too.

 

The two professions aren't comparable, but neither am I trying to compare them. I was talking about all professions, private and public, and saying that they all have duties of care, expectations of good behaviour in dealing with the public, and codes of conduct. If I break mine, then I'm hauled over the coals, if Pearson breaks his - and he most certainly has, on multiple occasions - then he'll be hauled over the coals, as he has been on at least one occasion this year.

 

His behaviour is not normal, not for a manager in his position (i.e. bottom, and trying to convince his players that he is calm, composed and in control). It's why the first opinion most people have on Leicester is that their manager is an ****hole, it's why newspapers try to wind him up, why he keeps making headlines.

 

And what we can see in his very public meltdown, and failure to behave responsibly, may well tell us a lot about other aspects of his professional performance. When you remember that we're rock bottom, have been for months, haven't won in an age and are on our way to getting relegated with one of our lowest ever, and the PL's lowest ever, points totals; it looks like Pearson is a man who struggles to cope with more professional requirements than just media-handling.

[Parafox]

How many times does Nigel Pearson come in to contact with the general public in a professional capacity? The answer is he doesn't. On a day to day working basis he comes into contact with others employed by the same private company whether that be a receptionist at the training ground, one of his first team players or the kit man. He does not work in the public sector. The training ground is closed off limits to the general public. On match days it's impossible for anybody to come into any form of close contact with the manager of Leicester City except for representatives of the opposition football club (again a private company), select representatives of the Premier League (another private company) or members of the media (even then he only speaks to those that he wants to and bans those he doesn't wish to speak to). Nigel Pearson is subject to the working conditions placed on him by the private company he works for, he's not a public servant employed by the government. He doesn't come directly into contact with children, who are seen as "vulnerable" in the eyes of the law. As for your comment regarding bankers and journalist's being dragged through the mud, only when they have broken the law. Last time I checked calling someone a **** isn't breaking the law. 

 

So that makes it OK to be generally abusive to those who support the team you manage?

 

**** off does it.

 

Grow up and get real

 

It's not about the law, it's about respect.

 

I suspect you have little of that.

[Itsthejoeker]

If Stringer had asked that, the whole lot of you would have been cumming in your pants all night.

[GingerrrFox]

So that makes it OK to be generally abusive to those who support the team you manage?

 

**** off does it.

 

Grow up and get real

So what makes it ok to be abusive to those who work for the team you support? "I pay my money, I've got the right". No it really doesn't. It's hypocrisy. Nothing more nothing less. The players and manager don't go deliberately out of there way to lose football matches and under perform. If it's justifiable to abuse a football manager for not doing his job properly, it's justifiable for a football manager to abuse a journalist for not doing theirs. 

[inckley fox]

How many times does Nigel Pearson come in to contact with the general public in a professional capacity? The answer is he doesn't. On a day to day working basis he comes into contact with others employed by the same private company whether that be a receptionist at the training ground, one of his first team players or the kit man. He does not work in the public sector. The training ground is closed off limits to the general public. On match days it's impossible for anybody to come into any form of close contact with the manager of Leicester City except for representatives of the opposition football club (again a private company), select representatives of the Premier League (another private company) or members of the media (even then he only speaks to those that he wants to and bans those he doesn't wish to speak to). Nigel Pearson is subject to the working conditions placed on him by the private company he works for, he's not a public servant employed by the government. He doesn't come directly into contact with children, who are seen as "vulnerable" in the eyes of the law. As for your comment regarding bankers and journalist's being dragged through the mud, only when they have broken the law. Last time I checked calling someone a **** isn't breaking the law. 

 

Of course he comes into contact with the public. He's already received a ban this year for his interactions with the public, and when your opinions, thoughts and words are published it's in the very etymology of the word 'published' that you are working with the public. On the one hand MC Prussian is telling me that he's dealing with far more members of the public than a teacher, and on the other I've got you saying that he's not dealing with the public at all.

 

And, as I keep saying, this has nothing to do with the public sector. Lots of private sector jobs, most in fact, require people to deal with the public at times and have professional codes of conduct which govern how they go about it. Pearson is no different, which is why he received a ban before Xmas and is receiving so much media coverage at the moment.

 

So once a week for 90 minutes he comes into contact with the public. And when his opinions are published, three or four times a week, he is also by the very nature of having his thoughts published, coming into contact with the public. In the public sector it is actually quite hard to get fired for dragging the NHS's, or the government's, or your school's name through the mud, but in the private sector it's incredibly easy. He will be required to behave in a way which befits the club's professional standards, and the professional standards of working in football management, and if he doesn't do that, he'll be disciplined. As he already has been.

[Donut]

So what makes it ok to be abusive to those who work for the team you support? "I pay my money, I've got the right". No it really doesn't. It's hypocrisy. Nothing more nothing less. The players and manager don't go deliberately out of there way to lose football matches and under perform. If it's justifiable to abuse a football manager for not doing his job properly, it's justifiable for a football manager to abuse a journalist for not doing theirs. 

 

The journalist was doing his job. It was hardly a damming insult, he was asking a question.

 

The bigger picture here, is that this is a guy who loses his cool ALL. THE. TIME.

 

How do you think that transfers to the players?

[Parafox]

So what makes it ok to be abusive to those who work for the team you support? "I pay my money, I've got the right". No it really doesn't. It's hypocrisy. Nothing more nothing less. The players and manager don't go deliberately out of there way to lose football matches and under perform. If it's justifiable to abuse a football manager for not doing his job properly, it's justifiable for a football manager to abuse a journalist for not doing theirs. 

 

Publicly?

 

Makes him look ignorant, without wit or guile.

 

A bit like you.

[MC Prussian]

Because we, the fans, pay our money to go to the games?

 

A football ground is a public place to which we have access by paying to be there?

 

A football manager is always in the public eye?

 

Their wages are paid by us buying (season) tickets?

 

You really are naive (that means lacking in undesrtanding due to inexperience or immaturity).

If you really think that the matchday gates are paying a significant portion of the players' wages, then you need to take a closer look at our wage bill and the average gate returns and put the numbers in relation to one another.

[GingerrrFox]

Publicly?

 

Makes him look ignorant, without wit or guile.

 

A bit like you.

 

What you have described in that sentence, funnily enough perfectly encapsulates you in this debate. The ignorance is quite obviously on your side of this fence. You fail to grasp anything I've said and resort to smart retorts such as "**** off" and 'grow up".

[Parafox]

Of course he comes into contact with the public. He's already received a ban this year for his interactions with the public, and when your opinions, thoughts and words are published it's in the very etymology of the word 'published' that you are working with the public. On the one hand MC Prussian is telling me that he's dealing with far more members of the public than a teacher, and on the other I've got you saying that he's not dealing with the public at all.

 

And, as I keep saying, this has nothing to do with the public sector. Lots of private sector jobs, most in fact, require people to deal with the public at times and have professional codes of conduct which govern how they go about it. Pearson is no different, which is why he received a ban before Xmas and is receiving so much media coverage at the moment.

 

So once a week for 90 minutes he comes into contact with the public. And when his opinions are published, three or four times a week, he is also by the very nature of having his thoughts published, coming into contact with the public. In the public sector it is actually quite hard to get fired for dragging the NHS's, or the government's, or your school's name through the mud, but in the private sector it's incredibly easy. He will be required to behave in a way which befits the club's professional standards, and the professional standards of working in football management, and if he doesn't do that, he'll be disciplined. As he already has been.

 

Thank you.

 

My thoughts made literal.

 

Saved me an enormous amount of thinking power that would have kept me awake for hours.

[Donut]

What you have described in that sentence, funnily enough perfectly encapsulates you in this debate. 

 

So, ahead of the next game, youd have no objections if Pearson walked in, and called more journalists p.ricks?

 

All well and good, no damage to the club, no problem, you can just say anything?

[inckley fox]

The journalist was doing his job. It was hardly a damming insult, he was asking a question.

 

The bigger picture here, is that this is a guy who loses his cool ALL. THE. TIME.

 

How do you think that transfers to the players?

 

Exactly. The board can worry about his professional conduct, my primary concern is whether he can get results. If we stay up then he can be as big an embarrassment as he likes. But he isn't doing well in this, most important aspect of the job, and it seems that he can't cope with the requirements of managing at this level. Now this is a concern, and the fact that his media-handling seems to support the idea that he can't cope, means that outbursts like today's add to the picture of a man who can't cope with the pressures of working at the highest level.

 

But it's totally pointless arguing that his conduct is totally normal, totally fine, not at all unusual and perfectly in line with the professional conduct of other top managers when they're in the public eye. It clearly isn't.

[wurmer]

The club cannot be seen to be condoning behaviour like this - it's totally unacceptable to do it - even if he is actually correct!

 

I don't see how this can continue, we are becoming a laughing stock.

[Bob Weasel Fox]

It makes me mad that if we said anything like this we would find ourselves in a disciplinary and most probably be sacked with almost immediate effect. He does it and some people think it is acceptable. No matter how much someone riles you, if you are in a position of public facing roles (something I am in my business life and also as a Councillor) the last thing I would ever say is that to someone. You may possibly think to yourself, well they didn't make a good impression on me but you would never EVER say that in public.

I really hope that Vichai, Aiyawatt and the rest of their family/King Power group see the papers and have another in house EGM to get rid of him.

Enough is enough.

Good post Robin

[Parafox]

If you really think that the matchday gates are paying a significant portion of the players' wages, then you need to take a closer look at our wage bill and the average gate returns and put the numbers in relation to one another.

 

I'm not an idiot and don't you dare patronise me.

 

I pay a significant sum out of my spare money to watch my team, as do most of us.

 

The point remains. My money pays for bog roll or that dick of a centre back. It's all in the pot.

[Donut]

If you really think that the matchday gates are paying a significant portion of the players' wages, then you need to take a closer look at our wage bill and the average gate returns and put the numbers in relation to one another.

 

Patronising much? I seriously wouldnt keep digging yourself deeper.

[MC Prussian]

A lot of those requirements also apply to a football manager, you know! The players are supposed to 'learn something' from Pearson too.

 

The two professions aren't comparable, but neither am I trying to compare them. I was talking about all professions, private and public, and saying that they all have duties of care, expectations of good behaviour in dealing with the public, and codes of conduct. If I break mine, then I'm hauled over the coals, if Pearson breaks his - and he most certainly has, on multiple occasions - then he'll be hauled over the coals, as he has been on at least one occasion this year.

 

His behaviour is not normal, not for a manager in his position (i.e. bottom, and trying to convince his players that he is calm, composed and in control). It's why the first opinion most people have on Leicester is that their manager is an ****hole, it's why newspapers try to wind him up, why he keeps making headlines.

 

And what we can see in his very public meltdown, and failure to behave responsibly, may well tell us a lot about other aspects of his professional performance. When you remember that we're rock bottom, have been for months, haven't won in an age and are on our way to getting relegated with one of our lowest ever, and the PL's lowest ever, points totals; it looks like Pearson is a man who struggles to cope with more professional requirements than just media-handling.

It's as if you don't read my posts on purpose, instead continuing harping on about a completely different topic! Not for the first time, I might add.

 

I was referring to the abuse managers receive from people within a crowd of several thousands on comparison to abuse a teacher receives from (roughly) two dozen teenagers or kids week in, week out. Your kids are supposed to learn something from you as a teacher - whereas fans certainly never have and probably never will learn something from a football manager. Different ballgame altogether.

 

Just as much as pupils at a private (or public) school don't buy the right to abuse the teaching staff (for repeated conduct they could be expelled for) it isn't acceptable for fans to curse at the manager or fans without accepting that at one point it could all backfire.

 

And please elaborate on your claim that most people categorize Pearson as an "(insert insult of your choice here)". I bet you can't back that up, as it's only part of your attempt at discrediting the manager and/or the club for that matter.

 

I also can't think of a many newspapers trying to wind him up. I've heard the RL story and today's post-match remark caught on mic.

 

A "public meltdown" to me is comportment on a much, much lower level with a lot more bad words exchanged and/or erratic behaviour involved.

For the majority this season, Pearson has managed to remain well-behaved. The "incidents" some fans are highlighting remain the exception to the rule.

If at all, the picture that you're painting is more a feeble attempt of a psychological profile created by an amateur.

[MHC]

Apart from the 7 or 8 fixtures where we have actually produced acceptable performances, this season has been an embarrassment. One disgraceful performance after another and it's not on. The players are not up to the standards of this league, more importantly though is the fact they are not played within a system where they flourish and they are not being sufficiently motivated to get results. This is Nigel Pearson's fault. He is responsible for identifying new recruits, he is responsible for producing a system which gets the best from what players we have and he is responsible for motivating the players to punch above their weight. He has failed miserably at all of the above. Look at Burnley, they are playing to their strengths and overachieving massively, and that is down to Sean Dyche. Anyone who believes they are 'better' then Leicester are deluded, and that includes their own fans, they are not. The difference is they have someone in charge who knows how to get an average group of players fired up to gain results in a system that plays to their strengths. We have someone who is out of his depth and quite frankly clueless at this level, Pearson deserves to be sacked because we deserve better and Leicester City Football Club can do better then Nigel Pearson, we are too good a club to employ somebody of his mediocre calibre.

[inckley fox]

The club cannot be seen to be condoning behaviour like this - it's totally unacceptable to do it - even if he is actually correct!

 

I don't see how this can continue, we are becoming a laughing stock.

 

Definitely a laughing stock. I don't live in Leicestershire, spend much of my time out of the country and I can assure you that people find us, and especially our manager, hilarious.

 

Interesting that people a few years back were terrified of having a horrible man like Keane at the club, or various other awful people, whereas they admired Pearson's dignity. Some of those same people are now telling us that Keane is proof that it's normal for managers to behave this way.