The false narrative about Nigel Pearson.

[chinapig]

20 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

No, and I recognise that.

We're not appointing/retaining managers based solely on integrity are we? Last time we did that didn't we get Dean Holden?

No of course I wasn't suggesting that. Competence would be the first criterion but I would argue that integrity is, or should be, a key feature of any leader.

I see honesty and transparency being important parts of integrity but I don't see much of either from those running the club.

[BrightWhiteTrainers]

9 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

So he did have a disagreement with them. Respectfully so, and over reasons that can be seen as valid - choosing his family over his job - but he had a disagreement with the board that led to the termination of his contract.

So again, he did fall out with Mandaric. There's a reason for it beyond just a personality clash, but there's still an issue there.

He also had issues with Morris at Derby and with the owners at Watford. I accept that neither of these are glorious beacons of good football club stewardship, but there is an undeniable pattern. Why does Nigel keep getting employed by bad owners? You even say that your current owners weren't the best before Pearson came along. Why doesn't he get jobs with good owners? They do exist but they seem to choose to employ other managers rather than Pearson.

My theory, if you're still reading, is that Pearson has an excellent "common touch". He is very able to get people who are below him in a hierarchy, or are outside of that hierarchy, on board. He does delegate well, and I'm sure he empowers people through that delegation rather than drown them. All very good. Almost too good.

Too good in that in doing this he creates a jealousy above him. A jealousy that he cannot manage. He's great at managing down and leading, but he's poor at managing upwards and explaining. He works in an industry where ego and bravado and delusional belief in ability abound at the level of Mandaric and Lansdown. He comes unstuck time and again because he can talk to paupers but not to kings.

For me this is why we were at our recent best when we had Richard Gould as a mediator and go between CEO. A man who could talk to both Pearson and to Lansdown and could help smooth the communication between them. Gould can talk to both paupers and to kings, and he was immensely useful in that role. I don't know enough about your club to know if you had an equivalent individual when Pearson was with you under the Thais, but you may well have done.

The gods of most pantheons are famously flawed. Vengeful, vindictive, vain and quick to anger and wrath. I'm not saying that Pearson is those things, but gods are imperfect and so is he.

Finally, to make my position clear. I do not support the sacking of Pearson on Sunday. I do not necessarily think he should have stayed forever, and have argued that a managed succession at the end of his contract could have been the best way to move on from him. So I may support a change from Pearson, but not like this, not this badly managed. 

 

I just wanted to add a bit more detail to try and explain why describing Pearson as "Falling out" with our owner Mandaric, and then our current ownership, is wide of the mark, and again just more evidence of the false media narrative behind the bloke.

"In the summer of 2010, Mandaric showed a consortium of potential club buyers round the club without Pearson's knowledge and invited Paulo Sousa to the second leg of the play-off semifinal. The club then allowed Hull City to speak to him. Pearson said: "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out what's happening" – suggesting the club did not want to keep him. He then left Leicester to take the job at Hull City and Paulo Sousa was later appointed as his successor."

I'm not too sure here where the idea of a 'fallout', instigated by Pearson, comes from. He's got the Club promoted at the first time of asking and then got them into the play offs the following season. Whilst he's trying to achieve back to back promotions, the owner is already showing his replacement around the Club, what competent owner does that? Not only that, but you then allow your manager to speak to relegated Hull (No doubt so that Mandaric wouldn't have to pay compensation for sacking Pearson, and the PR disaster for sacking a manager achieving such great things)....What has Pearson done wrong there? But yet again he's supposed to have 'fallen out' with an owner, when he simply didn't.

On 30 June 2015, however, Pearson was sacked, with the club stating that "the working relationship between Nigel and the Board was no longer viable." The sacking was linked to his son James's role in an alleged racist sex tape made by three Leicester City reserve players in Thailand during a post-season tour. He was replaced at Leicester City by Claudio Ranieri, who took Leicester to the Premier League title the following year as 5000–1 outsiders. Sports journalists gave Pearson credit for building the team that won the title, as did player Riyad Mahrez.

Based on the fact that just two years later, Pearson was managing our ownerships second Club OH Leuven, the general consensus amongst our fans is that there was no "Falling out", in fact it's hard to argue their relationship was soured at all. But what must be understood here, is that as a foreign owner, there is simply no way that you can allow players of your club to make racist remarks to your own kind (For want of a better way to put it). The Club has generated huge income from the merchandise we've been able to sell over there, the owners simply had to take action. I don't think Pearson disagreed, I genuinely think he realised that he had one choice to protect his Son, and that was for "Pearson sacked by Leicester" to be the headline, rather than "Premier League footballers racist orgy", or something similar. If the ownership had "fallen out" with Nigel, and they were that disgraced by his attitude, why do they reappoint him two years later?

 

What Pearson is not, is a 'yes man'. He will not allow an ownership to point the stick of blame towards him, for their own failings, or be willing to tow the line when an owner is lying to their own fans. Nor will he, in fairness, come out and bash an ownership just because he knows the fans will support him in doing so, which he very easily could have done since his sacking. Pearson will never have the business success of a Lansdown, a Mel Morris or the Pozzos, he would never survive in that world because he doesn't "Play the game". But likewise, I don't think any will appoint a manager that builds up a Club for them capable of winning three domestic league titles.

[McNasty Filth]

Brilliant thread this, really enjoyed reading it. Thanks to all that have taken the time to post such thought provoking and knowledgeable replies.

[maxjak]

15 hours ago, Olé said:

This, a million times this.

This is the very definition of leadership and something those who are terrible leaders or over promoted (sons?) always misunderstand - thinking they need to do the complete opposite to hide their insecurity and to keep everyone else at arms length from decision making rather than create shared responsibility and leadership through delegation. 

It has been so obvious from the way he speaks and acts Pearson is a master of this with both his staff and his players. I have found it fascinating to hear how he articulated the environment he wants because it is so foreign to the owner and leadership of our club and how it has been run for decades, including under the LJ era that the owner so adored.

They are all inexperienced bluffers who are terrified of being shown up by real leadership and experience and create an environment where strong personalities are something to be scared of and to be avoided. We only want amateur yes men that keep the owner and his son feeling unexposed and able to lead. This is why Nigel Pearson has been such a breath of fresh air as even with mixed results and in difficult circumstances you could see the club was finally maturing and getting to be a place where leading by example mattered and standards reflected that.

And so the Lansdowns threw it all away again and consigned us to years more of wishy-washy make it up as we go along, rather than hear some home truths and trusting the experience of somebody who for once knows what developing a football club is all about. This is why it is so exhausting, painful and depressing this week - and why I have zero appetite or for any more years under this owner.

Exactly.........the Lansdowns ego's have blighted the opportunity for NP to build our club into something special, given more time and support,  i am confident he could and would have taken us to the Premiership

But the meddling of two non football savvy individuals has now ruined any chance   we had of achieving exactlly what Lansdown purports to be  his own   aim and ambition?  How can such a successful and wealthy businessman be so blind and shortsighted.   Those who fail to learn from history, are then doomed to continue to repeat the same mistakes.   And we all are fully aware of Lansdown's   ongoing record of appointing the wrong manager.   He then, at last gets it right  .....  , but then decides to squander the chance of likely success due to his own egocentric stubborness....I despair!

 

 

[Ben1980]

On 31/10/2023 at 08:28, Olé said:

This, a million times this.

This is the very definition of leadership and something those who are terrible leaders or over promoted (sons?) always misunderstand - thinking they need to do the complete opposite to hide their insecurity and to keep everyone else at arms length from decision making rather than create shared responsibility and leadership through delegation. 

It has been so obvious from the way he speaks and acts Pearson is a master of this with both his staff and his players. I have found it fascinating to hear how he articulated the environment he wants because it is so foreign to the owner and leadership of our club and how it has been run for decades, including under the LJ era that the owner so adored.

They are all inexperienced bluffers who are terrified of being shown up by real leadership and experience and create an environment where strong personalities are something to be scared of and to be avoided. We only want amateur yes men that keep the owner and his son feeling unexposed and able to lead. This is why Nigel Pearson has been such a breath of fresh air as even with mixed results and in difficult circumstances you could see the club was finally maturing and getting to be a place where leading by example mattered and standards reflected that.

And so the Lansdowns threw it all away again and consigned us to years more of wishy-washy make it up as we go along, rather than hear some home truths and trusting the experience of somebody who for once knows what developing a football club is all about. This is why it is so exhausting, painful and depressing this week - and why I have zero appetite or for any more years under this owner.

Brilliant post- sums up my feeling exactly- especially the last sentence. 

[ExiledAjax]

@BrightWhiteTrainers thanks for replying, it is interesting to get outside views. I actually live near Leicester and have spoken to many, many Leicester City fans over the last few years. My opinions and theories on Pearson aren't just made up, and not all of your fans deify him either.

I've never said that Pearson instigates these fallings out or disagreements. I'm sure he doesn't knowingly do that at all. But he still tends to leave clubs under a bit of a cloud re the owners. I guess you could see that as a positive if you like - he's not getting sacked for his football, he's getting sacked because of troublesome employers and in one case his son's idiocy.

You say he's not a "yes man". I agree, and that is his issue. So is the issue that he's just too damned noble? My point is that it seems as though the principles he has are a bit of a millstone around his neck, forever causing him to fall foul of the people like Mandaric, Morris, and now Lansdown. What a cross he bears.