Waconda

1 minute ago, GrahamC said:

And which of them inherited a side that had just lost £38m?

Irrelevant,.

They are coaching the players they have right now and getting more out of them.

We have a squad that should be mid table and at least be .500 = Underperforming 

Those  other managers have bottom half squads = Overperforming

4 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Absolutely this, Hunt was on circa £14k a week too, I’m probably in the minority who thought he was ok, & with the benefit of hindsight he has suddenly become another Bradley Orr but these sums simply weren’t sustainable.

There would have been an outcry on here if Pearson had kept Lansbury (FWIW I thought he was right to let him go) yet released Liam Walsh, who has done absolutely nothing this season at Swansea or Hull, by the way, one Pearson (not OTIB) got spot on.

I laugh at this “he has to get it right this summer” stuff, our recruitment team look poor & we have absolutely no money but apparently it is make or break if he doesn’t find 3 or 4 gems.

Walsh leaving was nothing to do with Pearson, he left on his own terms and was never going to sign a contract, decision pre dating Pearson.

So no blame can be attached to NP for Walsh.

Swapping Hunt and Lansbury for Simpson, King and James I do have an issue with.

1 hour ago, Gillies Downs Leeds said:

He has been a bit part player at Luton.

Yep 29 appearances for Luton this season a Team 4th in the table.

Total "Deadwood" !

13 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

I bet if we'd kept Hunt and Lansbury the same people would be saying "I said they were past their best, mad decision by Pearson to keep them, what happened to his supposed contacts? Loads of good frees around like Simpson, King, James... surely he could have attracted some of his old Leicester squad to help us out? They probably know he's failing and didn't want to be associated with him again." or some bollocks like that.

Probably but you don't know that, it's not fact.

Just your opinion.

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

But when they get shit from the perceived bigger team’s fans / players, they give them decisions.

The unconscious bias already exists in officials minds before the game starts, crowds at the event have little affect as it already exists.

Happens in all sports. Boxing scoring a prime example - IMO.

8 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

**** me your repetitiveness is getting boring.

Apologies for having a differing opinion to you.

Please put me on ignore.

I will do the same to you.

1 hour ago, Numero Uno said:

No he doesn’t, he’ll be first to get his arse kicked out of the door if they got promoted.

You have of course no idea of knowing this.

I said "chance" and he does have that.

Meanwhile Czech International Kalas and Austrian International Weimann have absolutely no chance, currently marooned in an absolute shambles of a team.

27 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

Nobby Namechange is shitting the bed for attention again I see.

Point proved.

4 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

All about opinions.
I thought Lansbury was poor and Hunt too. Right to move them both on.
Simpson, towards the end of his fist year he started to look ok. Previous to that I would have got rid, but could understand circumstances meant it made sense, though hindsight says no. I would say King & James have had a positive impact, much more so than Lansbury, only stopped by injury.

 

I disagree but then all about opinions.

Lansbury has a chance of being a Premier League player next season.

20 minutes ago, harrys said:

Hang on, Martin and Weimann have 30 league goals between them (possibly the most productive partnership in the division) we have three of the most talented youngsters in the division, we have two experienced midfielders with premiership experience, two centre halfs that have won promotion from this division and a keeper than many think is one of the divisions best yet we are still a shambles, Pearson has been a massive disappointment and we are as bad this April as we were last April, there is no way this team should be near the foot of the table playing the most dreadful football and no one can tell me that the likes of Millwal, Luton, Blackburn etc have better players yet are fighting for promotion 

Agree with this 100%.

Much of the shouting down of any constructive criticism of performances and results over the last 14 months is beginning to look more and more like desperate excuse making to deflect from the obvious embarrassment  and disappointment many will be feeling after trumpeting this Manager as the the Messiah, coming in to "kick lazy back sides"  sort out the "dead wood", make us aggressive, organised and difficult to beat.

He hasn't got an easy job, no new manager taking over a club usually does but we have underperformed with the quality of squad available consistently over 14 months.

5 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 It isn't just about lack of parachute payments. It's about the financial precipice City stand on, thanks to the profligacy of the past management. 

Put both together, Pearson's hands are tied.

We've known all season we cannot compete with the best in this division. Yesterday at least showed we can worry them by scoring on the break. 

He has underperformed with the squad he has had available to him.

Forget the smoke screen of financial woes constantly being used as an excuse, doesn't affect the here and now.

He has had a squad capable of being .500 in this Division and has produced nothing like it.

Those managers quoted have produced far more with far less. It can be done.

10 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

Could we have kept or offered new deals to all those players? No, not without spending shit loads of money we didn't have.
Slice it how you like the CEO went, the fact that most people wanted him gone is a bonus. I honestly think he realised he was about to be found out. 
I give you that there are questions about our injuries, but a change was needed. I'd say a revolution was needed, it's started. It needed a strong man to come in, with experience. Now Pearson has started the process.
Am I content at where we are, probably not. But I'm not sure dumping the plan now is the right thing.

 

Said it at the time should've kept Lansbury and Hunt but instead replaced them with King, Simpson and James = Awful business.

1 minute ago, 1960maaan said:

Allowing for the fact we lost 14 players that were OOC, managed to get rid of our CEO, the medical staff, a lot of fitness and conditioning staff that all (specially the CEO) were not fit for purpose. 
I admit here that there could still be questions asked due to our injury lists.
Due to financial problems we have given minutes to about a teams worth of Academy talent. 
We have been hindered yet again by injuries, even more by when and what part of the team has been affected.
With all that, I have enjoyed some of the last few months footballl ,more than at any time over the last 2 years. I'd say there has been progress, slower than we might have hoped , but when you can't play they players when and where you want it's hard
I moan as much as many, but I also try and take a breath and think about where we are. If we had had a full squad to choose from the entire year and performed as we have, I'd be in the front row screaming , we haven't. 

Chose to get rid of 12 players, the CEO left of his own accord for a better offer and we brought in an "elite" medical team the would improve the injury problems and "get more players on the grass" .

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Yep, we’ve regressed.  As has the squad available to select from. As has the cost of that squad. 

He has only lost "dead wood" and the players he has decided to "banish".

He has had a mid table Championship squad available to him all season and has underperformed with it. We haven't gone down so no disaster.

But we will next season if massive improvements are not made.

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Whether Hughton or Cook “turned us down” or not (poetic licence from me), they went through 2+ interviews, before finding they / City weren’t the fit they each side thought they were.  Cook basically tried to make himself look bad in the interview, when he realised how big a mess it was, so he wouldn’t get offered the gig.

Ah OK fine. It read like you meant Hughton turned us down because of our financial position.

He was never offered the job.

4 minutes ago, Edgy Red said:

I agree with most of what you say but i do feel that Nige has been given a bit of a free ride this season.

Whilst our financial problems are clear, i don't believe that we are in any more of a mess than Luton, Preston, Millwall, Huddersfield etc.

A managers job is to improve what he has available to him, and i don't feel he has done that. Nige still has my support but unless we bring in 3 or 4 players in the summer that greatly improve us, next season will unfortunately follow a similar pattern.

I thought at the very least he would make us organised and hard to play against, but if anything, we are the opposite of that.

 

 

I thought at the very least he would make us organised and hard to play against, but if anything, we are the opposite of that.

Out of possession we are a disorganised shambles for much of the time. 

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Agree so much.

We needed experience in at this point to avoid a spiral.  I’m not saying we have the worst squad in the Championship, but I don’t think it is that good either, and we’ve relied on a stellar Andi Weimann, producing a career best season (by some stretch), the emergence of several young players that ought to be better from 1) a season of regular(ish) first team football or 2) a season of being part of a first team training squad, with minutes here and there.

We are trying to survive on the cheap, and we’ve done that.  It’s painful, yep, but it could be so much worse.  We aren’t getting relegated.  It sounds negative, it sounds forgiving of the manager, giving him excuses, but I honestly don’t think there were too many out there capable of rebuilding us.  I think it might be fair to say Cook and Hughton turned us down because it was a very tough gig.

Some are saying next season’s squad might be weaker.  Yep, it might.  Does that not say how big a mess we are in, that after 12 months of cost cutting, we still have to scale back further.  Relying on sell-ons for Kelly for example, or selling our young stars…how did it come to that.

Thank god, we have the likes of Benarous, Conway, Bell, etc that can build upon what we’ve seen from Scott, Semenyo and Pring.  Credit to Academy staff, but also Pearson for sacrificing “budget” to work with a squad that includes these….rather than paying for experience that might buy us a few “worthless” positions up the league table.

I’m probably in a minority that has enjoyed this season, not everything is visible through on field performances.  I’m happy to live with that view.

Hughton didn't turn us down !

Turned down the Posh job to take a break from coaching - apparently.

1 hour ago, JoeAman08 said:

I’d personally get rid, but I do concede staying up was the general consensus going into the season. I was hoping for much more progress in performances though. Just not sure how the season will be looked at from the viewpoint of the Lansdowns. 

Agree with this totally.

9 minutes ago, WolfOfWestStreet said:

Bournemouth play the plucky underdog card with a massive hard on but they've been a Pay 2 Win team for a long time. You could fit the whole of Dean Court practically in the lansdown stand. Rhe championship is an uneven track, I'm desperate for a wage cap. Let's really see who is a good coach then. 

Nathan Jones, Ryan Lowe, Mark Robins, Gary Rowett and Neil Critchley all doing well without parachute payments.

It is possible to be at least be competitive.

11 minutes ago, E.G.Red said:

Unless it's an exceptional offer. He would stay. As he has said on several occasions he likes it here, and for some players thats all they want, reasonable pay and enjoy who they play for. 

Yes agreed but losing most weeks with little hope of improvement next season and the opportunity of an improved 3 year deal at an actual competitive side might change his mind.

Especially as he is back on the National teams radar.

2 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

The other thing they singularly fail to realise is he is a perfect example of how we reduce our wage bill.

Rumour is he accepted around half what he was on previously as part of getting 3 years, so (unlike Wells, Palmer, Kalas) he is now absolutely on a sustainable wage for us.

The decision to give him this contract (not popular on here at the time, but those who said so are incredibly quiet about it now) was a great piece of business.

I have always said he is our best player.

Others describe him as someone with a foot like a banjo who just runs around alot.

2 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

All the people who seem determined that Weimann is off in the summer, how much do you think clubs would pay?

Because I'd bet the reality is nowhere near what you're expecting, and nowhere near what would tempt the club to sell.

Still, if it gives you something else to catastrophize...

Someone with any sense in the current market will pay £5 million for a proven Championship goal scorer like Weimann.

Why on earth would he stay with this aimless shambles if an offer came in.

I said a while ago he will be the biggest loss of all the saleable assets.

7 minutes ago, petehinton said:

To say 3-2 flatters us is an understatement. Would’ve been 5 or 6 on another day if not for Bentley and their wastefulness. 
 

Im so ******* tired of watching his concede such poor goals. They had a man with 7 yards of free space around him basically every corner too. So amateur 

DETAILS.

9 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

What a silly response.

Little money to spend on fees or wages, trying to tempt players to an almost certain relegation scrap will not be easy (Leicester has beens excluded).

We will badly need a coach who can get more out of less or we will go down.