Beckford Bust Up

[gregs_y2k]

There is no need for egos. Take a look at the recently promoted teams and those now in the automatic promotion places (Southampton and Reading) Tell me how many "star" players they have with egos - none. We need a team that will play together and fight to the death - both Mills and Beckford in my opinion should go as soon as possible - they are disruptive. Last time I looked there was no I in TEAM.

Reading - Kebe

There is a ME in team if you do a bit of shuffling.

I would not sacrifice a blossoming strike partnership for a dispute which was caused by little or next to nothing. People have referenced Ferguson on here but seem to forget the times that he's swallowed his pride to accommodate players he cannot afford to lose, the most recent being Wayne Rooney, who after he fell out with the manager, then signed a new long term deal. Ferguson has had to deal with massive personalities in the past. Cantona wasn't ousted out of the club when he kicked a fan against Palace. How is what Beckford has done anywhere near as bad as this?

 

[Biffa Bacon]

Assaulting star players. Sackings on the spot for answering back in the changing room - whereas all Peason has done is not accept uppity behaviour by overpaid, under performing, self-appointed 'stars'.

I'm all for a dominant boss, I think it's the best aspect of his character.

A dominant boss may be a good idea if he had a ****ing clue, Nigel is playing players out of position and out of form because he gets on with them, Mills wasn't playing well but Beckford and SSL seem to have fallen foul of NP whilst playing OK.

Are you turning into Alan Young.

 

[Mawsley]

Are you turning into Alan Young.

I'm more Jimmy than Alan.

 

[indierich06]

A dominant boss may be a good idea if he had a ****ing clue, Nigel is playing players out of position and out of form because he gets on with them, Mills wasn't playing well but Beckford and SSL seem to have fallen foul of NP whilst playing OK.

Are you turning into Alan Young.

The only player out of the team due to a bust up with Pearson is Mills and we have more than enough cover for central defence.

Nigel is playing players out of position and out of form because we have injuries and suspensions and a squad which lacks quality in depth, which is Sven's legacy. Where are all these players who can't get in the side because Pearson doesn't like them? All the talk about having the best squad in the league at the start of the season turned out to be just smoke and mirrors - our strength in depth is shocking, we've got a pretty decent first team, but apart from that we look threadbare.

 

[Redditch Fox]

This situation is unfortunate but perhaps the only way forward is the painful way which means moving on players who don't fit with Pearson's ethic of hard work and to be frank somewhat dour approach to the game.

I could see these kind of difficulties occuring when the owners chose to replace Sven with a totally different type of manager. It wasn't likely that some of Sven's signings would suit Pearson.

Unfortunately, I don't see it being that easy to sort out the squad for next season and I'm sceptical about some supporters confidence that we are a few touches away from being promotion worthy for next season. I take it that Thai people are fairly stoical about suffering.

Not to worry according to the expert sports reporters in the Mercury we are still highly fancied for the play offs this season! Dream on!

 

[Brown Nose]

This issue encompasses my concern with NP. I can see him building a solid squad for next season and us being more consistent. I can even see us getting promoted under him. But will we ever be able to recruit players that are going to be any good at Premier League level under him? Is he going to be able to handle being a Premier Manager? He doesn't seem to react well under pressure, certainly if his media interviews are anything to go by.

This isn't a claim at inside information but I was told back in December that NP didn't like Beckford, Mills or Bamba and was going to get rid at the first opportunity. The events since have made me think there was more to this than I thought at the time.

I don't mind a strong manager. I don't mind a manager who knows what he likes to work with and what he doesn't. But I think a lot of people are concerned that he doesn't like the Gradels, Bullards, Beckfords, Bamba, Mills because they have opinions and an approach that is not easily controllable. The higher you go, the more players have this approach.

If we were to get promoted next season under NP, I can see us being one of those dogged failure teams that don't survive up there. He won't have 'individuals' or a 'Plan B'. So do we persist with NP, let him get us up and struggle, then ditch him like QPR did with Warnock?

My view is that's exactly what will happen with NP unless he can demonstrate an ability to add to his managerial talents. I think it would be a great sign of progress if NP 'managed' the likes of Beckford and Bamba into being key players for us next season. I think both will be ditched though. If he'd managed to get Billy Sharp in January, I doubt Beckford would have had much game time at all.

 

[The Old Fox]

This situation is unfortunate but perhaps the only way forward is the painful way which means moving on players who don't fit with Pearson's ethic of hard work and to be frank somewhat dour approach to the game.

I could see these kind of difficulties occuring when the owners chose to replace Sven with a totally different type of manager. It wasn't likely that some of Sven's signings would suit Pearson.

Unfortunately, I don't see it being that easy to sort out the squad for next season and I'm sceptical about some supporters confidence that we are a few touches away from being promotion worthy for next season. I take it that Thai people are fairly stoical about suffering.

Not to worry according to the expert sports reporters in the Mercury we are still highly fancied for the play offs this season! Dream on!

I know that it is what I want, but I still think that, rather than losing a whole lot of expensive players, for far less than we paid (you always get less as a seller than you pay as a buyer - if you see what I mean!), it is going to work out cheaper to ditch Pearson, in the minds of the board.

Does anyone know, from a reliable source, whether Mills, or the board vetoed that proposed loan to Leeds, or was just newspaper talk?

 

[RHYDAL]

Meat me at ate.

 

[indierich06]

Does anyone know, from a reliable source, whether Mills, or the board vetoed that proposed loan to Leeds, or was just newspaper talk?

It was all agreed, Mills turned it down to stay at Leicester from what I heard.

 

[Miles Away]

I'm not one for the "stuff upper lip", do as you are told because he is the boss, type of management that Pearson tends to employ.

I'm a firm believer that a managers job (in sports or out) is to get the best out of his staff and individuals. It is much easier to sideline and ignore a more difficult employee than it is to find a way to work with them. However, oftentimes if you do sideline staff, the product suffers.

If a team is having bust ups and highly paid employees are sitting around bored...the first place you have to look is at their manager.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

The article doesn't say anything. It just quotes NP's post-match interview on RL.

I'd still be surprised if Beckford isn't playing on Saturday.

 

[indierich06]

I'm not one for the "stuff upper lip", do as you are told because he is the boss, type of management that Pearson tends to employ.

I'm a firm believer that a managers job (in sports or out) is to get the best out of his staff and individuals. It is much easier to sideline and ignore a more difficult employee than it is to find a way to work with them. However, oftentimes if you do sideline staff, the product suffers.

If a team is having bust ups and highly paid employees are sitting around bored...the first place you have to look is at their manager.

But at what point do you say 'enough is enough' and remove a disruptive influence from the club? You can't just pander to them and let them do what they want, they're not the ones in charge - the manager is, and if they're getting paid £25,000 a week they should follow their manager's instructions whether they like them or not.

Pearson has shown that he will work with players he falls out with - Sean St Ledger is a prime example of this, he was transfer listed at one point, but he obviously got stuck in, showed the right attitude and since he came back into the side he's been great and both player and manager have moved past the issue. Mills will have been afforded the same chance, but it appears he hasn't taken it.

Pearson has also persisted with Beckford since the start of his tenure, even though he was in terrible form and had a real attitude problem (remember when he was subbed at West Ham?). He's even gone so far as to organise training sessions based solely around Beckford and his abilities. What more would you have him do? Besides, there's no proof yet that there even IS a rift between Beckford and Pearson, at the minute it's all paper talk.

My view is that Pearson is a very fair manager, backed up by the points I've put forward - he works with players if they will work with him, show a god attitude and if he thinks they can contribute to the side. If they don't show the right attitude, I'll fully support him when he shows them the door.

 

[The Old Fox]

But at what point do you say 'enough is enough' and remove a disruptive influence from the club? You can't just pander to them and let them do what they want, they're not the ones in charge - the manager is, and if they're getting paid £25,000 a week they should follow their manager's instructions whether they like them or not.

Pearson has shown that he will work with players he falls out with - Sean St Ledger is a prime example of this, he was transfer listed at one point, but he obviously got stuck in, showed the right attitude and since he came back into the side he's been great and both player and manager have moved past the issue. Mills will have been afforded the same chance, but it appears he hasn't taken it.

Pearson has also persisted with Beckford since the start of his tenure, even though he was in terrible form and had a real attitude problem (remember when he was subbed at West Ham?). He's even gone so far as to organise training sessions based solely around Beckford and his abilities. What more would you have him do? Besides, there's no proof yet that there even IS a rift between Beckford and Pearson, at the minute it's all paper talk.

My view is that Pearson is a very fair manager, backed up by the points I've put forward - he works with players if they will work with him, show a god attitude and if he thinks they can contribute to the side. If they don't show the right attitude, I'll fully support him when he shows them the door.

The point is, that we are not discussing a single case: I would imagine that there are regular tantrums, at most football clubs. These are young men, getting paid excessive amounts of money and having their egos stroked. Managing that is a difficult job, which is why football managers are paid so much themselves.

 

[spionfox]

FWIW, I'm on Team Nigel.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

A dominant boss may be a good idea if he had a ****ing clue, Nigel is playing players out of position and out of form because he gets on with them, Mills wasn't playing well but Beckford and SSL seem to have fallen foul of NP whilst playing OK.

I seem to remember SSL being awful up to his falling out with NP and it was actually since his falling out with NP which spurred on his improved performances in the second half of the season.

 

[Macky]

Last time I looked there was no I in TEAM.

There's a couple in 'nauseating platitude'

 

[Profondo Rosso]

There's a couple in 'nauseating platitude'

:icon_lol:

 

[RHYDAL]

But at what point do you say 'enough is enough' and remove a disruptive influence from the club? You can't just pander to them and let them do what they want, they're not the ones in charge - the manager is, and if they're getting paid £25,000 a week they should follow their manager's instructions whether they like them or not.

Pearson has shown that he will work with players he falls out with - Sean St Ledger is a prime example of this, he was transfer listed at one point, but he obviously got stuck in, showed the right attitude and since he came back into the side he's been great and both player and manager have moved past the issue. Mills will have been afforded the same chance, but it appears he hasn't taken it.

Pearson has also persisted with Beckford since the start of his tenure, even though he was in terrible form and had a real attitude problem (remember when he was subbed at West Ham?). He's even gone so far as to organise training sessions based solely around Beckford and his abilities. What more would you have him do? Besides, there's no proof yet that there even IS a rift between Beckford and Pearson, at the minute it's all paper talk.

My view is that Pearson is a very fair manager, backed up by the points I've put forward - he works with players if they will work with him, show a god attitude and if he thinks they can contribute to the side. If they don't show the right attitude, I'll fully support him when he shows them the door.

Sounds to me like Pearson is the disruptive influence putting the needs of the few before the needs of the many.

 

[Miles Away]

But at what point do you say 'enough is enough' and remove a disruptive influence from the club? You can't just pander to them and let them do what they want, they're not the ones in charge - the manager is, and if they're getting paid £25,000 a week they should follow their manager's instructions whether they like them or not.

Pearson has shown that he will work with players he falls out with - Sean St Ledger is a prime example of this, he was transfer listed at one point, but he obviously got stuck in, showed the right attitude and since he came back into the side he's been great and both player and manager have moved past the issue. Mills will have been afforded the same chance, but it appears he hasn't taken it.

Pearson has also persisted with Beckford since the start of his tenure, even though he was in terrible form and had a real attitude problem (remember when he was subbed at West Ham?). He's even gone so far as to organise training sessions based solely around Beckford and his abilities. What more would you have him do? Besides, there's no proof yet that there even IS a rift between Beckford and Pearson, at the minute it's all paper talk.

My view is that Pearson is a very fair manager, backed up by the points I've put forward - he works with players if they will work with him, show a god attitude and if he thinks they can contribute to the side. If they don't show the right attitude, I'll fully support him when he shows them the door.

I respectfully disagree with a lot of this. Now, everybody is going to have their own opinion on leadership and it appears ours are at odds a wee bit. (I'm not going to explain this well).

I think senior members of staff should have an opinion and would much rather have a few talented, if difficult, staff than a collection of steady professionals. If you were a manager of, say, a development team would you want a collection of reliable, but limited coders, or would you want one or two wild cards that have more talent and ability? Personally, I'd choose the wild cards and rely on my ability to manage to get the best out of them. When you rely on steady professionals you raise your floor, but you also lower your ceiling.

In my opinion leadership isn't about getting people to do as they are told, it's about goals. I know that in order to be successful I'm going to have to squeeze every little bit of inspiration and productivity out of my staff, I can't afford to sideline highly paid resources.

Simply put "I have this group of players, in order to achieve promotion I have to get the best out of all of them, so I've got to find a way to get my MOST TALENTED players, playing."

Also, I don't have the info on Beckford and this could all be bollocks, I'm just entering into a larger conversation about leadership style.

 

[alli1]

Well when we look at things as they are ,id say that Beckford is being used as scapegoat, lets face the facts, Mills didnt get on with NP, St Ledger the same,now Beckford,so i ask the question is NP up to a very big job,i wouldnt think so