Was / Is NP a 'Bootboy' and can we get real about what we need to do?

[SaintRichmond]

You always seem to post your opinion as fact yet never back it up with any evidence. It is tiresome to the extreme.

 

 

STILL no response to my points though ............ has not Lowe briefed you yet ??

[derry]

I can't believe someone sane could write this - especially the last sentence. Turn the season around? Our season was already a bad car crash when he took over - at least he managed to salvage something from the wreckage.

I know quite a lot of people at SMS and Staplewood and they are all full of praise for Pearson. Within a short period of time he galvanised all the players right down to the younger ones and lifted the whole club with his enthusiasm and honesty (which had been sadly lacking).

 

His departure was purely political. The week he was appointed I heard first hand how p*ssed off Lowe and Cowan were with his arrival and I gather they made their displeasure known at the time. So there was no way he was going to stay even if he offered to work for nothing.

 

I was sorry to see him go, I feared at the time that because of the antipathy he wasn't going to get the job.

 

His salary was nowhere near that of Burley which Lowe negotiated, plus his total cost to the club was a small proportion of the compensation paid by the SFA.

[Red and White Army]

 

However, like you I would rather he had been more honest with this appointment, rather than treating us as fools and trotting out the "we couldn't afford him" excuse (then again some fools still seem to believe we got rid of Pearson because of his salary, but fortunately it would appear that only a minority take in the OS & Lowe spin).

 

Nowhere did they say they sacked Pearson because of his salary. You're living in um pahars fantasyland again, making things up to smear Lowe.

[derry]

Strange how those in power view 5.5k per week over the top for a manager whilst paying more for many players?

 

More like half that figure.

[derry]

Nowhere did they say they sacked Pearson because of his salary. You're living in um pahars fantasyland again, making things up to smear Lowe.

 

I presume he was given notice on his reported rolling monthly contract. If it wasn't rolling then it was short term and just lapsed.

[Give it to Ron]

Nowhere did they say they sacked Pearson because of his salary. You're living in um pahars fantasyland again, making things up to smear Lowe.

 

Um what about here.....although its only on the OS so not really a true source

 

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/club/?page_id=151

 

Suggest you get your facts right before accusing others of fantasy land!!!

[Foxy]

Not convinced that negotiations would have to be opened with NP to know he would be too expensive to employ - I think his initial contract would be a fair indication of what he'd cost.

 

I haven't a clue what Pearson was paid, and indeed don't care. He's gone and doing well at Leicester. Good luck to the bloke.

 

Not sure success there would mean he'd have had any great joy here. He has a decent squad at that level due to having more in the way of resources that his competitors. Whether he'd do the same here (or indeed do any better than Jan) is pure conjecture.

[Greenridge]

Um what about here.....although its only on the OS so not really a true source

 

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/club/?page_id=151

 

Suggest you get your facts right before accusing others of fantasy land!!!

 

I expect RaWA will make an apology. It's disappointing to see we have a two page thread discussing a term used by the wind-up merchant which I'm sure he'll be loving but there we go. It's of course difficult to make any kind of objective argument as to whether Pearson would have been better than JP but he had many qualities to suggest he would have done a decent job as he's proving at Leicester.

[VectisSaint]

Nowhere did they say they sacked Pearson because of his salary. You're living in um pahars fantasyland again, making things up to smear Lowe.

It may not say he was sacked just because of his salary, but the OS states quite clearly (see link below, paragrgaph 4) that one of the reasons for the change was the financial situation and that the combined salary of JP and Wotte was lower than Pearson. So it is quite clear that this was a factor. But the point is that no-one really believes that NP was more expensive than JP and MW combined, that is the spin which upsets everyone. In fact it would appear that even the OS suggests that if JP and MW were successful that they would actually cost more because of the incentive scheme (lower basic but better incentives).

 

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=10167

 

Didn't see the other reference above when I posted, but I think this is an even better source as it was a news item released to the OS, presumably with RL's approval, whereas the other reference is a brief history written by one of the OS hacks, and probably not scrutinised in the same way. Either way RaWA was completely mistaken.

Edited 8 October, 2008 by VectisSaint

[St Paul]

Would Leicester be top of League 1 had JP been appointed there instead of Pearson?

[trousers]

Would Leicester be top of League 1 had JP been appointed there instead of Pearson?

 

[Wes Tender]

Wes Tender

I believe that Pearson in a decade will be one of the top managers in British football and we will wistfully rue the time that we had him here cutting his teeth and let him go.

:smt043On my aching sides.......

 

Did you mean on or oh?

 

I often find that the simpler people are, the more easily they are amused. As neither of us has a crystal ball, my prophecy could easily come to pass. I don't think that it was that outlandish as a speculative opinion.

[hughieslastminutegoal]

Um what about here.....although its only on the OS so not really a true source

 

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/club/?page_id=151

 

Suggest you get your facts right before accusing others of fantasy land!!!

 

Couldn't be bothered to read all this guff before, but I love the golden duo's promise to "mix style with steel" right at the end.

Best laugh I've had this week. So far it's more like a mix of candy floss with aluminium foil.

[up and away]

Originally Posted by jam

Leicester are not a league one team. They should never have been relegated and the fact that they were should be a sign for some of our fans about what inept management really is.

 

Pearson is in no way a boot boy (are you really letting a certain wind up poster pull your chain like that?), he may turn out to be a very good manager and good for him if he does, but he didn't show anything amazing here. He didn't turn our season around - if he did we would have ended the season in a hgher position than when he took over. At best he put the brakes on. Slowly.

I can't believe someone sane could write this - especially the last sentence. Turn the season around? Our season was already a bad car crash when he took over - at least he managed to salvage something from the wreckage.

I know quite a lot of people at SMS and Staplewood and they are all full of praise for Pearson. Within a short period of time he galvanised all the players right down to the younger ones and lifted the whole club with his enthusiasm and honesty (which had been sadly lacking).

 

His departure was purely political. The week he was appointed I heard first hand how p*ssed off Lowe and Cowan were with his arrival and I gather they made their displeasure known at the time. So there was no way he was going to stay even if he offered to work for nothing.

 

I was / am a fan of Pearson, mainly from two things. The manner in which he conducted himself throughout his job and he actually got the team to compete. There is nothing to back any of this faith in Pearson, with the exception he kept us up with a lot of luck. The Burnely game was a big negative against Pearson, Burnley had not won a game in ages, several key players out and had not won on their travels or St Mary's in a very long time. We blew the Burnley game big time, just did not show up on the day and in all reality that could well of been it for us. That all leaves everything riding against Sheffield Utd, relying on others to fail to have any chance of staying up. With Burnley having the worst current form in the CCC prior to playing, Sheffield Utd were the form team. Fortunately they just lost the leagues top scorer and the centre backs both out from the previous weekend. With no recognised centre backs to play they had to make do with full backs in the centre. We played well on the day and got a 3-2 win, but you can easily say the story could have been a lot different if just 1 of those 3 players were not missing.

 

Bearing in mind pearsons limited success with all the players he had available to him, can anyone say he would improve on that with all those senior players sold off and none of the loans? Even the most optimistic of us would put that at highly doubtful, as I stated at the time.

 

As for the comments at the time of Pearsons arrival, that was mentioned in reference to the manner of his appointment and Chris McMenemy's part. I do remember something attributed to the Fulthorpe group at the time about not being the correct appointment, but not from Lowe.

 

I was disappointed when Pearson was not kept on, but equally I could see the logic in appointing the Dutch. The financial position dictated that it was full steam ahead with the youth and on that grounds understand the decision.

[Long Shot]

I'm afraid I can't name my (impeccable) source but -

 

Burley's compensation would have covered more than 18 months of Pearson's salary.

 

The OS bit put up by "Give it to Ron" is economical with the truth (no real surprise). When Pearson was appointed he was given an 18 month contract reviewable by both sides in the ensuing summer. Lowe, who was virulently anti Pearson's appointment in the first place, was never going to keep him on, full stop. He therefore exercised the get out clause both sides had.

 

IMO that was a mistake, but only time will really tell.

Edited 8 October, 2008 by Long Shot
missed out a comma

[derry]

I'm afraid I can't name my (impeccable) source but -

 

Burley's compensation would have covered more than 18 months of Pearson's salary.

 

The OS bit put up by "Give it to Ron" is economical with the truth (no real surprise). When Pearson was appointed he was given an 18 month contract reviewable by both sides in the ensuing summer. Lowe, who was virulently anti Pearson's appointment in the first place, was never going to keep him on, full stop. He therefore exercised the get out clause both sides had.

 

IMO that was a mistake, but only time will really tell.

 

That's more or less what I was told.

[OldNick]

the worse the results get here the better NP will become in peoples minds. If he gains promotion with a fantastic strong squad for that league with a team that let in few goals last season let alone now at a lower sandard he will be seen as a demi god to some.

I was more than happy to give him a go,but I dont know his salary and what squad he was prepared to work with.

He is history and so we are making divisions over something that has gone.

[OldNick]

That's more or less what I was told.

that could beby the same person of course.

The compensation package that we got for GB would have been swallowed up by the bank, and so I doubt that could have been factored in to pay wages.

[SaintRichmond]

It may not say he was sacked just because of his salary, but the OS states quite clearly (see link below, paragrgaph 4) that one of the reasons for the change was the financial situation and that the combined salary of JP and Wotte was lower than Pearson. So it is quite clear that this was a factor. But the point is that no-one really believes that NP was more expensive than JP and MW combined, that is the spin which upsets everyone. In fact it would appear that even the OS suggests that if JP and MW were successful that they would actually cost more because of the incentive scheme (lower basic but better incentives).

 

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=10167

 

Didn't see the other reference above when I posted, but I think this is an even better source as it was a news item released to the OS, presumably with RL's approval, whereas the other reference is a brief history written by one of the OS hacks, and probably not scrutinised in the same way. Either way RaWA was completely mistaken.

 

 

Get REAL fella ......

 

The OS were not likely to come out and say that Lowe had no intention whatsoever in keeping Pearson on, because he opposed the appointment in the first place, and was hell bent on appointing the Dutch Cheeses ......

 

........ the OS never said that ......... but that was what the situation was

 

I have not heard ONE Lowe Luvvie say that Rupert ever WANTED Pearson to stay, mainly because, as he had not appointed him in the first place, he didn't

[lordswoodsaints]

you can only polish **** as good as the next man.

it doesnt matter who is in charge,if you havnt got the resources then very little will change.

i didnt like NP as i know for sure that there were better options willing to do the job,but he would have fared no better or worse than JP imo.

[Arizona]

that could beby the same person of course.

The compensation package that we got for GB would have been swallowed up by the bank, and so I doubt that could have been factored in to pay wages.

 

So how would you explain spending £1.2m on MS if we couldn't afford Pearson?

 

Assuming that transfer is spread over 4 years, that's the equivalent of paying NP £6kpw for the same period. When you add Wotte and Poortvliet's wages onto that, we'd have to be paying Pearson £10k+ pw to genuinely not be able to afford him.

 

There is no way on Earth that is the case. It is pure, distilled bull-plop.

[Roger]

Ultimately it appears NP wanted more cash than Lowe was prepared to pay. That's understandable as what does a relatively unproven manager offer on his CV? Lots of guesswork involved. JP is the cheaper risk. Plus might be more productive by invention. We'll see.

 

Absolute rubbish. I know for a fact after speaking to nigel and lowe that rupert did not give pearson incharge, these issues were not discussed and it was obvious after 2 mins of the meeting that lowe wasnt going to keep pearson on. The meeting with lowe and pearson was also about 3 weeks after the season and it is a fact that wotte and portviliet were at the sheff utd game already on the understanding that they would get the job.

[up and away]

So how would you explain spending £1.2m on MS if we couldn't afford Pearson?

 

Assuming that transfer is spread over 4 years, that's the equivalent of paying NP £6kpw for the same period. When you add Wotte and Poortvliet's wages onto that, we'd have to be paying Pearson £10k+ pw to genuinely not be able to afford him.

 

There is no way on Earth that is the case. It is pure, distilled bull-plop.

 

Just as I believe Crouch helped us in the purchase of Andrew Davies, I believe Wilde did likewise with Schniederlin. I have heard rumours that Pearson was on £9k a week, give the Dutch a good pay rise each from their previous salaries and there is a significant saving. The saving though is a red herring, because the difference does not really come into the decision on the right manager.

 

I suppose the saving is worth mentioning as an aside, when you are looking at figures similar to that of closing the corners.

[St Landrew]

Of course Nigel Pearson wasn't a Bootboy. There are no such positions as bootboy in professional football. If anything, kitman Malcolm Taylor was the SFC bootboy, until his contract was cancelled. Pearson was simply a 1st Team Coach/Manager for SFC, who didn't have his contract renewed. The Bootboy tag is only one person's opinion, and personally styled nomenclature for a manager, who the member concerned has a low opinion of. It means no more than that. The member is using name-calling as a means to aggravate certain sections of the SFC fanbase, nothing more.

 

There are a few things about Nigel Pearson that should be made clear, to balance the thread, regardless of results, opinions, etc.., during his tenure.

 

1. Nigel Pearson's attitude and conduct while he was at SFC was exemplary.

2. Pearson's personal standing among fans, at the end of last season, could hardly have been higher [95% approval], as evidenced by independant polls conducted by Saints Web and Hampshire Radio.

3. There has not been one word of reproach from Pearson since his contract was cancelled. Merely a statement of regret that he wasn't able to continue as manager.

[Arizona]

Just as I believe Crouch helped us in the purchase of Andrew Davies, I believe Wilde did likewise with Schniederlin. I have heard rumours that Pearson was on £9k a week, give the Dutch a good pay rise each from their previous salaries and there is a significant saving. The saving though is a red herring, because the difference does not really come into the decision on the right manager.

 

I suppose the saving is worth mentioning as an aside, when you are looking at figures similar to that of closing the corners.

 

You think Wilde forked out £1.2m of his own money for an unproven French teenager? That was nice of him.

 

Anyway it's irrelevent where the money came from, the fact is we did have it. I can't believe Pearson was on anything like £9kpw, but even so it is less than the £6pw MS's transfer works out as, plus £2kpw each for JP and MW (who I am faily sure are on more anyway)

[Long Shot]

Just as I believe Crouch helped us in the purchase of Andrew Davies, I believe Wilde did likewise with Schniederlin. I have heard rumours that Pearson was on £9k a week, give the Dutch a good pay rise each from their previous salaries and there is a significant saving. The saving though is a red herring, because the difference does not really come into the decision on the right manager.

 

I suppose the saving is worth mentioning as an aside, when you are looking at figures similar to that of closing the corners.

 

 

Mate those rumours are so wrong - believe me NP was on nothing like £9000 per week.

And Wilde did nothing of the sort with MS

[Scummer]

So how would you explain spending £1.2m on MS if we couldn't afford Pearson?

 

The simple answer to that is that we didn't pay £1.2M for him. It was

 

a fee which could rise to 1.5m Euros.

 

The key part of that statement is 'could rise to'. We didn't pay anything like that up front, probably only a couple of hundred thousand.

[Arizona]

The simple answer to that is that we didn't pay £1.2M for him. It was

 

 

 

The key part of that statement is 'could rise to'. We didn't pay anything like that up front, probably only a couple of hundred thousand.

 

My understaning of the deal was that the fee, including appearance fees etc, would be spread out over the course of his contract, which is I believe 4 years. So we are infact paying around £300k pa. assuming we don't play him about 5 times a year.

 

This is kind of irrelevant anyway. I cannot believe Pearson was on more than Wotte and JP at all, let alone £300k a year more.

 

Don't foget in January we loaned out Rasiak and Skacel (in part) to save money. I don't think we'd do that, then bring in a coach on £9kpw a few weeks later.

[Guest Hacienda]

Just as I believe Crouch helped us in the purchase of Andrew Davies, I believe Wilde did likewise with Schniederlin. I have heard rumours that Pearson was on £9k a week, give the Dutch a good pay rise each from their previous salaries and there is a significant saving. The saving though is a red herring, because the difference does not really come into the decision on the right manager.

 

I suppose the saving is worth mentioning as an aside, when you are looking at figures similar to that of closing the corners.

 

Nothing like good solid evidence is there.

[OldNick]

My understaning of the deal was that the fee, including appearance fees etc, would be spread out over the course of his contract, which is I believe 4 years. So we are infact paying around £300k pa. assuming we don't play him about 5 times a year.

 

This is kind of irrelevant anyway. I cannot believe Pearson was on more than Wotte and JP at all, let alone £300k a year more.

 

Don't foget in January we loaned out Rasiak and Skacel (in part) to save money. I don't think we'd do that, then bring in a coach on £9kpw a few weeks later.

The problem is in the mad world of SFC finance we dont know why anything was happening.

Rasiak and Saga etc were offloaded and I can assume it was down to costs. I was told by someone (probably rumour) that Rasiak was on a massive appearance fee, one that dwarfs Rudi's alleged 4k a match. So it was impossible for him to start.

When the accounts come out some may be able to untangle them and work out wages but unfortunately it seems all the wages are bundled together and so it is not easy to see who is on what.

[OldNick]

Nothing like good solid evidence is there.

Hace I can see why youare sceptical but at least he put perhaps rumour when some things are stated as fact when they are down right lies.

[St Paul]

All this talk of what we can and can't afford, perhaps someone can answer why we signed Pulis, when he's injured and is still 4 or 5 weeks away from full fitness.

 

Is he that good that we had to buy him then and there, rather than miss out?

 

Are we paying his wages?

 

Where does this sit with the Rupert Lowe cost cutting scheme,

 

And what would Leon Crouch's distractors have said, had Pearson done the same thing last season?

[trousers]

So how would you explain spending £1.2m on MS if we couldn't afford Pearson?

 

Wasn't it mooted that some sort of 'reverse loan' type deal had been struck up with Arsenal? i.e. they finance the deal, we give the lad the experience he needs and then they take him off our hands when he's earned his stripes?

[Window Cleaner]

You always seem to post your opinion as fact yet never back it up with any evidence. It is tiresome to the extreme.

 

How dare you question the teachings of St Grim ??

You'll be saying the Earth isn't flat next.::smt027:smt027

[Arizona]

Wasn't it mooted that some sort of 'reverse loan' type deal had been struck up with Arsenal? i.e. they finance the deal, we give the lad the experience he needs and then they take him off our hands when he's earned his stripes?

 

Irrelevant, unless Arsenal paid the transfer fee. We still had to find the money from somewhere.

[VectisSaint]

Get REAL fella ......

 

The OS were not likely to come out and say that Lowe had no intention whatsoever in keeping Pearson on, because he opposed the appointment in the first place, and was hell bent on appointing the Dutch Cheeses ......

 

........ the OS never said that ......... but that was what the situation was

 

I have not heard ONE Lowe Luvvie say that Rupert ever WANTED Pearson to stay, mainly because, as he had not appointed him in the first place, he didn't

Try reading posts in context (perhaps referring back to the posts that are quoted). We were discussing whether or not there was anything official said about the compensation of the various parties, and a certain poster said there was nothing, when clearly there was.

 

Do I believe what the OS says, no of course I don't, thats the whole point, the compensation issue was a smokescreen by Lowe, an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. The real reason was always that NP was not Lowe's appointee, and he could not stomach having to work with someone he could not manipulate as he desired. But rather than say something honest like "we wanted the coaching team that we believed would do the job" they had to peddle lies/half-truths about financial reasons.

 

I think I am very REAL, perhaps you should try getting REAL yourself

[trousers]

Irrelevant, unless Arsenal paid the transfer fee.

 

That's what I was suggesting....based on 'reading between the lines' of some posts on here at the time...sounds far-fetched, but what doesn't these days....

[Arizona]

That's what I was suggesting....based on 'reading between the lines' of some posts on here at the time...sounds far-fetched, but what doesn't these days....

 

Can't see it. Neither Arsenal nor Saints would have anything to gain by keeping such a deal secret.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

My personal opinions on this subject for what it's worth :

 

1 - Nigel Pearson did a fine job at SFC and he will in time become a Premier League Manager .

2 - No significant financial saving was made by replacing him with JP & MW .

3 - At no stage did Rupert Lowe ever seriously consider appointing NP as manager this season .

4 - Keeping Nigel Pearson could have been worth an extra 15/20 points at the end of this season compared to the current structure .

5 - Had he been offered the job he would have taken it - subject to certain reasonable conditions .

6 - I see no valid reason to believe he would not have worked with our young players in the 1st team .

7 - Time will prove that allowing NP to slip through our fingers will prove to be a serious error in judgment , comparable to the appointment of Steve Wigley in the 04/05 season .

 

I know I'm not the first to voice these opinions but please forgive me any repartition as I want to get my views on the record .

[Long Shot]

My personal opinions on this subject for what it's worth :

 

1 - Nigel Pearson did a fine job at SFC and he will in time become a Premier League Manager .

2 - No significant financial saving was made by replacing him with JP & MW .

3 - At no stage did Rupert Lowe ever seriously consider appointing NP as manager this season .

4 - Keeping Nigel Pearson could have been worth an extra 15/20 points at the end of this season compared to the current structure .

5 - Had he been offered the job he would have taken it - subject to certain reasonable conditions .

6 - I see no valid reason to believe he would not have worked with our young players in the 1st team .

7 - Time will prove that allowing NP to slip through our fingers will prove to be a serious error in judgment , comparable to the appointment of Steve Wigley in the 04/05 season .

 

I know I'm not the first to voice these opinions but please forgive me any repartition as I want to get my views on the record .

 

 

Can't argue with any of this.

[solentstars]

My dislike of Lowe to one side ........... you make no comment as to whether you agreed with my comments about Pearson's non appointment, ie, Lowe's insistance on an untried Dutch duo, Team selection etc

 

In the case of GS,GH and HR ... OK, "yes men" may be a bit harsh ....... but they certainly had to obey Lowe's doctrine, whilst they were at the Club

 

Lowe is not just Chairman ....... and that is just the start of the problem(s)

 

i would have liked the club to appointed pearson manager and i find it hard to understand why it did not happen, hopefully in the future details may begin to emerge.

i can also see the logic of appointing the dutch duo.

i also could not understand why we kept burley on has long has we did,after it appeared he lost his way? so you are right that some questions need to be answered.

[GreenTreeFrog]

I too didn't agree with sacking Pearson, but I also appreciate that as the man in charge it is his right to do what he sees fit with regards the managerial position.

 

However, like you I would rather he had been more honest with this appointment, rather than treating us as fools and trotting out the "we couldn't afford him" excuse (then again some fools still seem to believe we got rid of Pearson because of his salary, but fortunately it would appear that only a minority take in the OS & Lowe spin).

 

Lowe did not say ‘we couldn’t afford Pearson’. In fact he clearly stated Woote and Poorvliet, were they to succeed, would be on more money than Pearson was due to bonus payments. When Lowe said the decision to appoint the Dutch duo was ‘partly financial’ he went on to explain how we could not afford to continue as we had done previously. He claimed it would be unfair on ‘a traditional manager’ to work within the budget limitations set this year.

 

Here is a quote from Michael Wilde:

 

"We are extremely grateful for Nigel's contribution. He came to the club at a time of crisis and through his hard work and commitment we were able to avoid relegation on the last day.

 

"However, the board have been looking closely at the situation on the playing side of the club whereby we are inevitably going to have to depend to a large extent on the quality of our youngsters in the academy and the reserve team.

 

"Our view on that was we would need to adopt a European-style coaching system comprising head coach, with the objective of linking the academy to the first team.

 

"The board believe this will create opportunities for our younger players, which might not occur within the traditional English management structure."

 

That is what the ‘money saving’ part of the plan was about, nothing to do with managers salaries. That is not to defend the plan, or to suggest Pearson could not have worked under such a system. But Lowe/Wilde believed that the Dutch pair were better suited as they were used to working that way – Pearson was not.

 

I would have been happy enough to keep Pearson but he has gone and I have no interest in following Leicester City results. Before the season even started they were equal favourties for Promotion (3/1 along with Leeds) and the nearest competitors were 12/1 showing the huge gulf in class. Leicester city should get promoted easily - just as Birmingham City should but that would not prove McLeish is a superb manager.

[alpine_saint]

My personal opinions on this subject for what it's worth :

 

1 - Nigel Pearson did a fine job at SFC and he will in time become a Premier League Manager .

2 - No significant financial saving was made by replacing him with JP & MW .

3 - At no stage did Rupert Lowe ever seriously consider appointing NP as manager this season .

4 - Keeping Nigel Pearson could have been worth an extra 15/20 points at the end of this season compared to the current structure .

5 - Had he been offered the job he would have taken it - subject to certain reasonable conditions .

6 - I see no valid reason to believe he would not have worked with our young players in the 1st team .

7 - Time will prove that allowing NP to slip through our fingers will prove to be a serious error in judgment , comparable to the appointment of Steve Wigley in the 04/05 season .

 

I know I'm not the first to voice these opinions but please forgive me any repartition as I want to get my views on the record .

 

Good post - exactly as how I see it too.

[Arizona]

Lowe did not say ‘we couldn’t afford Pearson’. In fact he clearly stated Woote and Poorvliet, were they to succeed, would be on more money than Pearson was due to bonus payments. When Lowe said the decision to appoint the Dutch duo was ‘partly financial’ he went on to explain how we could not afford to continue as we had done previously. He claimed it would be unfair on ‘a traditional manager’ to work within the budget limitations set this year.

 

Here is a quote from Michael Wilde:

 

"We are extremely grateful for Nigel's contribution. He came to the club at a time of crisis and through his hard work and commitment we were able to avoid relegation on the last day.

 

"However, the board have been looking closely at the situation on the playing side of the club whereby we are inevitably going to have to depend to a large extent on the quality of our youngsters in the academy and the reserve team.

 

"Our view on that was we would need to adopt a European-style coaching system comprising head coach, with the objective of linking the academy to the first team.

 

"The board believe this will create opportunities for our younger players, which might not occur within the traditional English management structure."

 

That is what the ‘money saving’ part of the plan was about, nothing to do with managers salaries. That is not to defend the plan, or to suggest Pearson could not have worked under such a system. But Lowe/Wilde believed that the Dutch pair were better suited as they were used to working that way – Pearson was not.

 

I would have been happy enough to keep Pearson but he has gone and I have no interest in following Leicester City results. Before the season even started they were equal favourties for Promotion (3/1 along with Leeds) and the nearest competitors were 12/1 showing the huge gulf in class. Leicester city should get promoted easily - just as Birmingham City should but that would not prove McLeish is a superb manager.

 

More bull from Wilde there.

 

Since when do you need a continental manager to introduce young players into the first team? There is nothing what-so-ever to suggest JP and MW will perform any better than Pearson could have. Wotte has worked with the Dutch U-21s, Pearson has worked with the England U-21s. He also gave first team opportunities to Lallana and DMG during his short spell in charge, not to mention giving Dyer a second chance after the injuries and handbags.

[Mole1]

My personal opinions on this subject for what it's worth :

 

1 - Nigel Pearson did a fine job at SFC and he will in time become a Premier League Manager .

2 - No significant financial saving was made by replacing him with JP & MW .

3 - At no stage did Rupert Lowe ever seriously consider appointing NP as manager this season .

4 - Keeping Nigel Pearson could have been worth an extra 15/20 points at the end of this season compared to the current structure .

5 - Had he been offered the job he would have taken it - subject to certain reasonable conditions .

6 - I see no valid reason to believe he would not have worked with our young players in the 1st team .

7 - Time will prove that allowing NP to slip through our fingers will prove to be a serious error in judgment , comparable to the appointment of Steve Wigley in the 04/05 season .

 

I know I'm not the first to voice these opinions but please forgive me any repartition as I want to get my views on the record .

 

I would also add to point 2. that the dwindling attendances this season are IMO linked to Perasons removal among other factors. Therefore the zero cost saving is not true. Pearsons removal has cost this club thousands!

[um pahars]

Lowe did not say ‘we couldn’t afford Pearson’.

 

Wilde also said:

 

" "They're also prepared to come on favourable terms financially"

 

and the OS also said:

 

" The move is also in line with the club's limited financial situation. The combined salary of the pair is still less than that of Pearson"

 

" Current manager Nigel Pearson will not have his contract renewed when it expires next month with PLC chairman Rupert Lowe admitting that finances played a part in the decision."

 

Additionally all the stories in The Echo (who now have a smoochy, smoochy tie up with the Club) were running the Golden Duo [sic] were cheaper than Pearson.

 

And although many can see through the bullshiyyt and spin, sadly there are many on here who bought it, as you only have to look at the number of posters who still believe all this and genuinely believe we couldn't afford Pearson (with regards his own salary).

 

PS As mentioned by Arizona, why was it an impossibility that Pearson couldn't have operated in the same financial straightjacket as the Golden Duo [sic]??? Why couldn't he have introduced more of the youngsters???

Edited 8 October, 2008 by um pahars

[Long Shot]

Wilde also said:

 

" "They're also prepared to come on favourable terms financially"

 

and the OS also said:

 

" The move is also in line with the club's limited financial situation. The combined salary of the pair is still less than that of Pearson"

 

" Current manager Nigel Pearson will not have his contract renewed when it expires next month with PLC chairman Rupert Lowe admitting that finances played a part in the decision."

 

Additionally all the stories in The Echo (who now have a smoochy, smoochy tie up with the Club) were running the Golden Duo [sic] were cheaper than Pearson.

 

And although many can see through the bullshiyyt and spin, sadly there are many on here who bought it, as you only have to look at the number of posters who still believe all this and genuinely believe we couldn't afford Pearson (with regards his own salary).

 

PS As mentioned by Arizona, why was it an impossibility that Pearson couldn't have operated in the same financial straightjacket as the Golden Duo [sic]??? Why couldn't he have introduced more of the youngsters???

 

 

 

OK Um - just to back you up, Pearson's annual salary was around a fifth of what David Jones of Cardiff was on and just over a third of what Burley was on. Now I don't know what JP and MW's combined wage is but at the end of the day I doubt the difference between the two either way is that much.

This has nothing to do with finance. Lowe did not want Pearson for lots of reasons but not many of them were football related unfortunately.

[Big Ron fan]

Kick a ball up the middle and hope that SFC gets lucky amongst the others all doing the same and robbing us of supporter cash for a play off place? Reading made good CCC football and a 100 plus points a couple of years back under Coppell. That shoud be the aspiration.

 

If you are trying to imply (as I think you are) that Pearson is a 'long ball' merchant, you obviously weren't at the Bristol City or Sheff. Utd. games at the end of last season.

[OldNick]

OK Um - just to back you up, Pearson's annual salary was around a fifth of what David Jones of Cardiff was on and just over a third of what Burley was on. Now I don't know what JP and MW's combined wage is but at the end of the day I doubt the difference between the two either way is that much.

Where are you getting figures like that from? Are you saying that for example that DJ would be on 10k a week and GB on 6k pw, or 20 , 12 in that ratio ? It doesnt ring true to me and so would be interested in what salary you are implying NP was on.

[OldNick]

Lowe did not say ‘we couldn’t afford Pearson’. In fact he clearly stated Woote and Poorvliet, were they to succeed, would be on more money than Pearson was due to bonus payments. When Lowe said the decision to appoint the Dutch duo was ‘partly financial’ he went on to explain how we could not afford to continue as we had done previously. He claimed it would be unfair on ‘a traditional manager’ to work within the budget limitations set this year.

 

Here is a quote from Michael Wilde:

 

"We are extremely grateful for Nigel's contribution. He came to the club at a time of crisis and through his hard work and commitment we were able to avoid relegation on the last day.

 

"However, the board have been looking closely at the situation on the playing side of the club whereby we are inevitably going to have to depend to a large extent on the quality of our youngsters in the academy and the reserve team.

 

"Our view on that was we would need to adopt a European-style coaching system comprising head coach, with the objective of linking the academy to the first team.

 

"The board believe this will create opportunities for our younger players, which might not occur within the traditional English management structure."

 

That is what the ‘money saving’ part of the plan was about, nothing to do with managers salaries. That is not to defend the plan, or to suggest Pearson could not have worked under such a system. But Lowe/Wilde believed that the Dutch pair were better suited as they were used to working that way – Pearson was not.

 

I would have been happy enough to keep Pearson but he has gone and I have no interest in following Leicester City results. Before the season even started they were equal favourties for Promotion (3/1 along with Leeds) and the nearest competitors were 12/1 showing the huge gulf in class. Leicester city should get promoted easily - just as Birmingham City should but that would not prove McLeish is a superb manager.

It will be of little surprise that I think that much of this is credible.Forget not I have been a critic of MW.

I cant get all worked up about NP either way as he is yet to prove himself.

Some said he will be England manager one day, I myself dont hold to that or even PL but he may prove his worth but getting Leicester promoted proves little IMO, next season will show how good he is. His attacking system was not that effective but he was good at organising the defence in the last couple of games