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

[saintwarwick]

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 .

 

1. Did a reasonable job for us with 3 wins in 13 games, (JP has 3 wins in 10 league games, 5 in 13 if you include cup games). Time will tell to see if he turns out to be premier class.

2. No financial savings were made as NP was not on a contract after his short term contract was up at the end of the season. JP and Wotte were the cheaper alternative for the new contract if NP was also in the frame.

3. Agreed.

4. He managed only 3 wins in 13 games with experienced players, not too sure he would be 15/20 points better of with the same squad as JP has at the moment and would probably be in the same position as JP is now, imo.

5. Agreed.

6. Agreed but as in point 4 above.

7. Disagree.

[saintwarwick]

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.

 

Did he have an annual salary paid pro rata or did he have a short term contract which would have seemed less in comparison to an annual salary?

[um pahars]

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.

 

Your point is spot on, particularly when you look back at what Pearson said not long after he turned up:

 

"I have worked at clubs where the academy and first-team are separate entities and not integrated at all and those clubs are the poorer for it."

 

"If you put the right effort into recruiting and developing the right players then it can save the club a lot of money on transfer fees."

 

Doesn't sound like someone who is against the policy of developing the youth in tandem with the first team, nor someone who was averse to using youth as opposed to buying players.

[rocknrollman no2]

I dont think anyone could know for sure if Pearson would have done a decent enough job for us,but imo he earned the right to at least have a go at it after fulfilling his role of keeping us up last season.

Its obvious to me that after getting the backing of the players and fans and those in charge at the time,the only reason he wasnt given the job was because of Lowes vindictiveness and spite against those before him.

I bet letting Pearson go will come back to bite us.

[benjii]

I think we've established quite satisfactorily that NP has all the makings of an excellent manager and this club is the worse for his departure.

 

Next.

[saintwarwick]

I dont think anyone could know for sure if Pearson would have done a decent enough job for us,but imo he earned the right to at least have a go at it after fulfilling his role of keeping us up last season.

Its obvious to me that after getting the backing of the players and fans and those in charge at the time,the only reason he wasnt given the job was because of Lowes vindictiveness and spite against those before him.

I bet letting Pearson go will come back to bite us.

 

Nothing to do with that but more to do with going for the cheaper option. Letting Pearson go will not come back to bite us although I would of liked him to do a full season for us. Still lets judge him in this league should he get promoted from league one than what he is doing now with a rich chairman.

[Totton Red]

Nothing to do with that but more to do with going for the cheaper option. Letting Pearson go will not come back to bite us although I would of liked him to do a full season for us. Still lets judge him in this league should he get promoted from league one than what he is doing now with a rich chairman.

 

Like the way you assess that a teams success may be dependent on the financial wealth of the Chairman!

[SW11_Saint]

Pearson is showing himself again to be a very promising manager.

 

I thought that Leicester team would be shellshocked and would spend a season or two in that league, with Mandaric probably sacking Pearson reasonably quickly. In fact, it has to be said Manadaric has supported him pretty well but it still takes a good manager and motivator to turn a team round like that.

 

On a side issue, I bet Oakley is absolutely taking the **** out of that division - one of our most underrated players in my time.

I'm not a gambling man, but I have a sneaking suspicion that Leicester will be back in the Premier League before us...

[Long Shot]

Did he have an annual salary paid pro rata or did he have a short term contract which would have seemed less in comparison to an annual salary?

 

 

Sorry - not trying to be funny but I genuinely do not understand the question.

If I did I probably couldn't answer as I am only privvy to the ball park figures but if you can come back with a clearer question will do my best to answer.

[GreenTreeFrog]

Wilde also said:

 

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

 

I would hope so. Who would want them on unfavourable terms?

 

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"

 

Yes but all that is doing is pointing out that they are not costing any more that one manager. In other words some may have wondered how we can complain about lack of money then pay two managers instead of one. However, according to Lowe's comments, with success bonuses (some hope!) they will be on more than 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."

Yes he did. But if you go back to the original comments he immediately described what he meant by that. He said a traditional manager would need a money to buy new players and get in [expensive] loans but we cannot afford that so were going down the academy and youth route. He believed that was not how traditional managers were trained and decided (rightly or otherwise) that JP and Woote were more likely to be able to work in such a system.

 

 

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 no one is arguing about that.

 

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).

 

Who believes we genuinely could not have afforded Pearson? I doubt any one does and Lowe certainly did not say that either.

 

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???

 

Who said it was an imposibility? I didn't, and I dont even think that. Lowe/Wilde believed JP/Woote were better suited to the system than Pearson. That does not mean no one else on the planet would be capable of doing a decent job.

 

 

 

 

 

With respect Um did you actually read my post at all?

 

I have covered everything you have brought up there. Once again this has nothing to do with defending the plan, all I was doing was explaining the reasons given at the time. These were, as stated, ‘partly financial’ but are nothing to do with managers wages but were about the route the club intended to follow.

 

Wilde did not say Pearson would not be capable of working under the new scheme. Lowe/Wilde felt JP and Woote were better suited to the new system than Pearson and the basic salary of the two combined would not cost any more. That single sentence sums up why they chose JP - at least it was the reason given in public. It’s a simple as that. Maybe they were completely wrong but that was their decision at the time.

 

Where have I said that Pearson could not have worked under the same circumstances? My point is purely about the misinterpretation of the original reasons given. Nothing to do with anything else.

[GreenTreeFrog]

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.

 

That might be true but its not really the point I was making. Some people keep saying the reason for appointing JP was because the club claimed we could not afford Pearson's wages. That was never given as a reason, its obvious Lowe felt JP/Woote were better suited to the current set up than Pearson would have been, but it is not about wages.

 

Its not up to me to defend the new system so I will not develop that further but, with respect, its a bit more than just introducing a few young players now and again - our entire future depends on developing those youngsters to their full potential and we will be using them almost exclusively.

[Guest Hacienda]

Nothing to do with that but more to do with going for the cheaper option. Letting Pearson go will not come back to bite us although I would of liked him to do a full season for us. Still lets judge him in this league should he get promoted from league one than what he is doing now with a rich chairman.

 

Really?

[Greenridge]

Some people keep saying the reason for appointing JP was because the club claimed we could not afford Pearson's wages.

 

I believe posts #57 and #60 on this thread both give independant references from the OS site itself that this was a factor.

[Sheff Saint]

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.

 

More than this, i think NP would have pushed back a bit on introducing some that clearly are not ready yet. It's great to have a team full of kids. IF they are good enough. It just feels at the moment as if we are doing some of this for the sake of it. The thing that NP is doing at Leicester is ensuring he blends youth with strong people where required. Someone else replied saying JP is doing that with John and Surman, but John's barely started and you can't compare Surmans 'experience' with that of Chris Powell or Matty Oakley.

[SaintRichmond]

That might be true but its not really the point I was making. Some people keep saying the reason for appointing JP was because the club claimed we could not afford Pearson's wages. That was never given as a reason, its obvious Lowe felt JP/Woote were better suited to the current set up than Pearson would have been, but it is not about wages.

 

Its not up to me to defend the new system so I will not develop that further but, with respect, its a bit more than just introducing a few young players now and again - our entire future depends on developing those youngsters to their full potential and we will be using them almost exclusively.

 

 

Yes ...... developing them as fast as we can, so as to sell them off in the next available "window" ......... simply to keep the PLC Solvent ......... by the time we get used to them in the Squad, they will be gone ..........

 

SOD ALL TO DO WITH SOUTHAMPTON FOOTBALL

[JohnnyFartPants]

Yes ...... developing them as fast as we can, so as to sell them off in the next available "window" ......... simply to keep the PLC Solvent ......... by the time we get used to them in the Squad, they will be gone ..........

 

SOD ALL TO DO WITH SOUTHAMPTON FOOTBALL

 

Is it not to keep the football club solvent though, really? Is it that by using the words PLC instead of football club you can somehow make out they are being sold for greed purposes rather than a necessity to allow the club to continue existing?

[up and away]

With respect Um did you actually read my post at all?

 

I have covered everything you have brought up there. Once again this has nothing to do with defending the plan, all I was doing was explaining the reasons given at the time. These were, as stated, ‘partly financial’ but are nothing to do with managers wages but were about the route the club intended to follow.

 

Wilde did not say Pearson would not be capable of working under the new scheme. Lowe/Wilde felt JP and Woote were better suited to the new system than Pearson and the basic salary of the two combined would not cost any more. That single sentence sums up why they chose JP - at least it was the reason given in public. It’s a simple as that. Maybe they were completely wrong but that was their decision at the time.

 

Where have I said that Pearson could not have worked under the same circumstances? My point is purely about the misinterpretation of the original reasons given. Nothing to do with anything else.

 

You can point these facts out until you are blue in the face, but unless they meet with the Lowe haters agenda, they will never be accepted.

[Viking Warrior]

I see the normal doom and gloom merchants are in full depressive swing this week since our defeat at Coventry.

 

As for NP yes I liked him as a person and it easy for some of you spout off we would be doing better had he still been here.

 

I think it would be very debatable, some of you so called experts are missing the point about the mess we are in. Barclay bank are calling the shots as I recall.

The club would still have had to sell all the players whether Pearson was here or not.

So what would he have been left with, yep the academy and youngsters.

Would he have been doing any better than JP

He would not have been able to buy any reasonable players because barclays will not allow that. That is why we have a number of loanees on our books.

 

Some of you are inpatient and some of you just want the worse to happen to the club but me I can see a bright future for the club not immediatley I agree its going to a bumby period but we will be great club again either next season or the season after.

 

Get behind the team FFs, instead of trying to change history. Look at all the facts.

Blame Lowe for not appointing David Moyes all those years ago but lowe did not want to change the back room staff instead he was loyal to the back room staff.

[Wes Tender]

Green Tree Frog:

Lowe/Wilde felt JP and Woote were better suited to the new system than Pearson and the basic salary of the two combined would not cost any more. That single sentence sums up why they chose JP - at least it was the reason given in public.

 

I have highlighted the relevant bit. But of course everybody with any sense knows what the real reasons were...

[GreenTreeFrog]

Green Tree Frog:

 

I have highlighted the relevant bit. But of course everybody with any sense knows what the real reasons were...

 

 

Even if you are right then that is the subject of another topic but it does not change my earlier point at all. I was merely responding to this myth that the club said we could not afford to keep Pearson on as he cost too much. At no time did the club say that was the case.

[GreenTreeFrog]

You can point these facts out until you are blue in the face, but unless they meet with the Lowe haters agenda, they will never be accepted.

 

It’s too late. I have just looked in the mirror and I have already gone blue! I wonder if that ‘Blueman’ outfit is still going - I might apply to join.

 

What is so frustrating though is that many people do remember Lowe saying that if success bonuses were paid then the wage bill of JP/Woote would be higher than Pearson had been on. That alone should be enough to demonstrate it was not solely about wages. Apart from that some are reading much more into my post that I actually said.

[Whitey Grandad]

Some of you are inpatient and some of you just want the worse to happen to the club but me I can see a bright future for the club not immediatley I agree its going to a bumby period but we will be great club again either next season or the season after.

Shouldn't that be spelt 'in-patient'?

Edited 9 October, 2008 by Whitey Grandad
pedantry... missing '?'