Nigel Pearson

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

I met Nigel Pearson in a restaurant in Lagos on the Algarve a couple of years ago and had a short conversation with him in which I mentioned that I was a City season ticket holder, and I got the impression that we were not a club he had much affection for.  Seemed like a decent bloke though (albeit on the basis of two minutes’ contact!).

[Lew-T]

4 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

How strange, Watford fans were still supportive of him

This what the table looked like before he was appointed. No wonder they were still supportive...

[Red white and red]

Can’t see Pearson coming here, even if we were interested. Pearson doesn’t really strike me as a yes man who will conform to all of the guidelines. Lansdown won’t want anybody who will challenge him. That rules Pearson out. 

[harvey54]

51 minutes ago, archie andrews said:

Pearson been given the Spanish...... 

El Bow? 

[Rob k]

3 minutes ago, Red white and red said:

Can’t see Pearson coming here, even if we were interested. Pearson doesn’t really strike me as a yes man who will conform to all of the guidelines. Lansdown won’t want anybody who will challenge him. That rules Pearson out. 

So what’s a ‘yes man’? I’ve asked before but nobody ever has an answer 

[Simon bristol]

36 minutes ago, sludge said:

Still can't imagine him saying yes Mr Lansdown, no Mr Lansdown

I suspect the next manager will have to have that ability before any other capabilities are considered.

2 minutes ago, Rob k said:

So what’s a ‘yes man’? I’ve asked before but nobody ever has an answer 

Lee johnson

[Red white and red]

Just now, Rob k said:

So what’s a ‘yes man’? I’ve asked before but nobody ever has an answer 

Someone who will accept what is given to him by the money man, even if it does not match up to their wants. Someone who won’t rock the boat, due to fear of being bollocked and potentially losing their job. Someone who doesn’t ask questions of the chairman/DOF etc. and merely goes along with things. 
 

That’s my interpretation mate. 

[Rob k]

Just now, Red white and red said:

Someone who will accept what is given to him by the money man, even if it does not match up to their wants. Someone who won’t rock the boat, due to fear of being bollocked and potentially losing their job. Someone who doesn’t ask questions of the chairman/DOF etc. and merely goes along with things. 
 

That’s my interpretation mate. 

So if you accept a role and you know the guidelines you will expected to work under and you agree to this before you take the job - does that still make you a yes man or somebody who is working to a set of agreed principles? 
 

[Red white and red]

4 minutes ago, Rob k said:

So if you accept a role and you know the guidelines you will expected to work under and you agree to this before you take the job - does that still make you a yes man or somebody who is working to a set of agreed principles? 
 

There must be some flexibility in the guidelines set out, just due to the nature of the job.
 

The points I’ve made before, around merely accepting things, even if it doesn’t suit you, would lead me to believe that manager was a bit spineless and more likely to be a ‘yes sir, of course sir’ kind of person. 

[BS4 on Tour...]

1 hour ago, Lrrr said:

Please no

Why not chief?

[Fatalist]

1 minute ago, Red white and red said:

There must be some flexibility in the guidelines set out, just due to the nature of the job.
 

The points I’ve made before, around merely accepting things, even if it doesn’t suit you, would lead me to believe that manager was a bit spineless and more likely to be a ‘yes sir, of course sir’ kind of person. 

But at the end of the day, "He who pays the Piper calls the tune". If you accept things or not, you can't make policy decisions if you are an employee.

[Rob k]

2 minutes ago, Red white and red said:

There must be some flexibility in the guidelines set out, just due to the nature of the job.
 

The points I’ve made before, around merely accepting things, even if it doesn’t suit you, would lead me to believe that manager was a bit spineless and more likely to be a ‘yes sir, of course sir’ kind of person. 

What do you think he’s just accepted? I’m unsure of what you think has made LJ a yes man? 

[Taz]

16 minutes ago, Rob k said:

What do you think he’s just accepted? I’m unsure of what you think has made LJ a yes man? 

Was never critical of the board on any level at all, especially when on one of his "runs".

Was interviewed on Sky recently, possibly after Cardiff, and said something along the lines of "certain players being sold for some reason or another."

Lo and behold he was sacked not long afterwards. That's the only time I remember him saying something that may have "rocked the boat".

Up until then, always happy to go with what he was given (or taken away from him ala Webster, Pack etc".

[Andy082005]

49 minutes ago, Rob k said:

So what’s a ‘yes man’? I’ve asked before but nobody ever has an answer 

Pearson has made no secret of the fact when he goes into a club, he likes to be involved in everything. He did it at Leicester....and he said it in a radio interview a couple of years ago 

He wants a chairman to trust him to shape the club. 
 

Lansdown would never allow that. They want a manager / coach to come in, fall in line with everything Bristol Sport says and does, and never challenge back . 

LJ was a yes man. Clearly there were players bought in he never wanted. Palmer being one. No way someone like Pearson or Hughton would put up with that shit 

 

[Harry]

52 minutes ago, Rob k said:

So what’s a ‘yes man’? I’ve asked before but nobody ever has an answer 

I’ve always done what my boss has told me. 
That must make me a Yes Man. 

[GlastonburyRed]

'Yes men' are content to work with restricted creative freedom, that's my interpretation. They aren't empowered to say no to their boss, whereas others with that creative freedom would be allowed to take any day-to-day operational decision (within reason) that they wish.  

[Harry]

2 minutes ago, GlastonburyRed said:

'Yes men' are content to work with restricted creative freedom, that's my interpretation. They aren't empowered to say no to their boss, whereas others with that creative freedom would be allowed to take any day-to-day operational decision (within reason) that they wish.  

Apart from Brian Clough, I’d be interested to know how many managers have taken a day to day operational decision to sign a player without the authority of his chairman. 

[Rob k]

6 minutes ago, Harry said:

I’ve always done what my boss has told me. 
That must make me a Yes Man. 

Exactly - same here, I’ve often disagreed with decisions but ultimately if i want my wages paid i eventually accept I’ve been out ranked!!  

[Davefevs]

27 minutes ago, Taz said:

Was never critical of the board on any level at all, especially when on one of his "runs".

Was interviewed on Sky recently, possibly after Cardiff, and said something along the lines of "certain players being sold for some reason or another."

Lo and behold he was sacked not long afterwards. That's the only time I remember him saying something that may have "rocked the boat".

Up until then, always happy to go with what he was given (or taken away from him ala Webster, Pack etc".

I scribbled some notes from LJ’s post-match press conference after Cardiff, both BBCRB and Sky!  This is the Sky notes, which I heard after the BBCRB interview although they occurred the other way around.

• Been a high turnover of players - then added - for one reason or another 
• I’ve had to trade
• wants to hold onto better players
• I’m a victim of our own philosophy - then added - but not an excuse
• got a good squad

There was nothing in the Radio one but that first bullet matches your quote.

 

[Midred]

Where did Pearson's son go after he left Leicester? 

[Midred]

A team like Watford who are prepared to sack three managers in a season don't  sound like a good choice for you CV!

[Taz]

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I scribbled some notes from LJ’s post-match press conference after Cardiff, both BBCRB and Sky!  This is the Sky notes, which I heard after the BBCRB interview although they occurred the other way around.

• Been a high turnover of players - then added - for one reason or another 
• I’ve had to trade
• wants to hold onto better players
• I’m a victim of our own philosophy - then added - but not an excuse
• got a good squad

There was nothing in the Radio one but that first bullet matches your quote.

 

That's the one @Davefevs. Thought it was the Cardiff game.

So in summary- on a dodgy run, criticise the board - your time is up. Yes man no more.

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Taz said:

That's the one @Davefevs. Thought it was the Cardiff game.

So in summary- on a dodgy run, criticise the board - your time is up. Yes man no more.

SL / MA must’ve reacted quickly.

[LondonBristolian]

Last time everyone wanted Pearson here, he went to Derby and quickly got sacked.

He's a good manager but I'm not convinced how good a job he would do here. 

26 minutes ago, Rob k said:

Exactly - same here, I’ve often disagreed with decisions but ultimately if i want my wages paid i eventually accept I’ve been out ranked!!  

I've never really got the "Yes man" thing. I work as a senior manger for a charity and a fair bit of the time my job involves going into meetings arguing my corner for an hour against senior colleagues and then coming out of that meeting and publicly backing whatever decision was made.

If there was a decision I couldn't live with then I'd ultimately quit but, outside of that, part of management is assuming collective responsibility and ownership for decisions made. Going out and telling people you manage, the media or the general public that you disagree is just being unprofessional. 

We don't know what decisions got made behind the scenes or why they were made, or how much LJ argued about those at the time. All we know is that he was (until after the Cardiff game on the day he got sacked) professional enough to publicly back the decisions that were made. That didn't make him a "Yes Man". It just meant he wasn't an arsehole who whines and whinges in public about the arguments he didn't make persuasively enough in private. 

[Robbored]

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I scribbled some notes from LJ’s post-match press conference after Cardiff, both BBCRB and Sky!  This is the Sky notes, which I heard after the BBCRB interview although they occurred the other way around.p

• Been a high turnover of players - then added - for one reason or another 
• I’ve had to trade
• wants to hold onto better players
• I’m a victim of our own philosophy - then added - but not an excuse
• got a good squad

 

He was 100% correct............not that it matters now................

The new guy will have to work within the same boundaries as LJ did - unless SL has had a change of mind and has decided to relax the criteria.

 

[Fatalist]

16 minutes ago, Taz said:

That's the one @Davefevs. Thought it was the Cardiff game.

So in summary- on a dodgy run, criticise the board - your time is up. Yes man no more.

Do you really think he was sacked for a veiled criticism of the board, rather than because of his team's performances on the pitch?

[Red Exile]

2 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Last time everyone wanted Pearson here, he went to Derby and quickly got sacked.

He's a good manager but I'm not convinced how good a job he would do here. 

I've never really got the "Yes man" thing. I work as a senior manger for a charity and a fair bit of the time my job involves going into meetings arguing my corner for an hour against senior colleagues and then coming out of that meeting and publicly backing whatever decision was made.

If there was a decision I couldn't live with then I'd ultimately quit but, outside of that, part of management is assuming collective responsibility and ownership for decisions made. Going out and telling people you manage, the media or the general public that you disagree is just being unprofessional. 

We don't know what decisions got made behind the scenes or why they were made, or how much LJ argued about those at the time. All we know is that he was professional enough to publicly back the decisions that were made. That doesn't make him a "Yes Man". It just means he isn't an arsehole who whines and whinges in public about the arguments he didn't make persuasively enough in private. 

But in your professional situation - which I've often found myself in - people more senior probably owe that position to greater experience or knowledge. Their opinion deserves respect, or at least consideration.

The 'yes man' thing comes from the unusual nature of Steve Lansdown's position. He doesn't have more football knowledge or experience than a manager like Chris Hughton or Mick McCarthy. Unless I'm mistaken when they were plying their trade as players he didn't even follow football. But he will expect to be the boss, because he owns the club. The club chairman expects to have a say because his Dad owns the club.

That could make life difficult for a respected 'been there, done it' manager who wants to question decisions, e.g. Cotts. The ideal appointment is someone so grateful for the job they'll just do what they are told. A 'yes' man.

 

[Taz]

6 minutes ago, Fatalist said:

Do you really think he was sacked for a veiled criticism of the board, rather than because of his team's performances on the pitch?

Nope not at all.

However he had been on numerous dodgy runs and rode it out before. We were technically still in the mix for the playoffs even after the Cardiff loss, and the playoffs were the ultimate goal for this season.

Dodgy run, plus the first real dig at the board in his time here, ends with the sack. 

[Major Isewater]

2 hours ago, weepywall said:

That's probably Hughtons next job then. 

I thought he had already turned them down once. 

[BetterRedthanBlue]

Hughton would still be my first choice but I wouldn't say no to Pearson has a decent record.