Conditions of the takeover

[bocadillo]

We've speculated hard and long about whether NP walked or was it MM who pushed him. We've had Cardiffgate and asked ourselves when MM made the decision to appoint Sousa. And now the truth is starting to out.

I have it on very good authority that there was no walk-out by Pearson; there was no fall-out between Pearson and Mandaric. The whole thing stems from the takeover. Basically Top said he wanted Pearson out and Sousa in - that or it's all off - I get what I want or there will be no takeover and no money.

You can believe it if you want. I know my source's source and that he would be in a position to know the truth.

 

[FryattFox]

Makes sense, although would Pearson not have wanted to make this public at some point? I wouldn't want my name associated with a MON-esque paddy. Do clubs get their managers to sign confidentiality clauses when a package is arranged?

 

[Waxed]

Not surprising, but quite outrageous really. Why, as somebody investing in the club, would you want to take away one its spearhead figures of success? Is Sousa really that marketable?

 

[GazLCFC]

Makes sense, although would Pearson not have wanted to make this public at some point? I wouldn't want my name associated with a MON-esque paddy. Do clubs get their managers to sign confidentiality clauses when a package is arranged?

Certainly does make sense. The only question I have is, Why Sousa? yes he had a good career but I would have thought there were better known managers/ex palyers out there. It is well known that MM and Sousa are friends so did MM tell Top about him?

 

[Macky]

I wouldn't want my name associated with a MON-esque paddy.

I doubt a Paddy like MON would want his name associated with you either

 

[GazLCFC]

Not surprising, but quite outrageous really. Why, as somebody investing in the club, would you want to take away one its spearhead figures of success? Is Sousa really that marketable?

More or less what I was trying to say.

 

[Mawsley]

How the fudge would "Top" know who the hell Sousa was?

He knows football as well as I know macrame.

 

[Hazzman]

Exactly as I suspected when I heard the rumoured take-over. Nigel Pearson is a League Cup runner-up, Paulo Sousa is a Champions League winner. I bet there's a post somewhere with me stating that. Sousa goes missing for four weeks in the Summer too.

FF, Mandaric makes all his managers sign confidential agreements yet I think it was quite clear from Pearson's Hull press conference, there was something not right about his departure

 

[Macky]

there was no fall-out between Pearson and Mandaric. The whole thing stems from the takeover. Basically Top said he wanted Pearson out and Sousa in - that or it's all off - I get what I want or there will be no takeover and no money.

Is there a chance that this is Milan's spin?

 

[Waxed]

How the fudge would "Top" know who the hell Sousa was?

He knows football as well as I know macrame.

Exactly what I was thinking, which would probably lead you to think that Mandaric still had a big part in it all.

 

[alex]

Strange, I wonder what links PS might have with them? If this is true of course, however I very much doubt Boc would waste our time if he didn't feel strongly that this is indeed factual.

I feel sorry for Pearson if true I must say. Mind you, he's probably getting paid more now anyhow!

 

[bocadillo]

Is there a chance that this is Milan's spin?

No.

 

[Jeff]

Top said he wanted Pearson out and Sousa in - that or it's all off - I get what I want or there will be no takeover and no money.

It would explain the whole Pearson thing (and it was something that was rumoured at the time), but it seems an odd stance for the consortium to take. They could have taken over the club anyway and then changed the manager. Why insist it was done before the takeover?

 

[bocadillo]

It would explain the whole Pearson thing (and it was something that was rumoured at the time), but it seems an odd stance for the consortium to take. They could have taken over the club anyway and then changed the manager. Why insist it was done before the takeover?

Getting somebody else to do their dirty work?

 

[alex]

It would explain the whole Pearson thing (and it was something that was rumoured at the time), but it seems an odd stance for the consortium to take. They could have taken over the club anyway and then changed the manager. Why insist it was done before the takeover?

In fact, why insist on it at all?

 

[Mystery benefactor]

I always suspected that a takeover was imminent as soon as Pearson left, for exactly the same reasons. Of course though what I thought was just cynicism. We know none of the managers under Mandaric have been allowed to say anything to the media about their departure, probably due to non disclosure contracts.

 

[Mawsley]

No.

Just a spinning Top then.


...coat? Check. Taxi!

 

[alex]

Just doesn't add up to me. Not unless there is a link somehow.

Why would a consortium want to replace Nigel Pearson after all his efforts, with a manager whom had failed to make the grade at both QPR and Swansea?

 

[Profondo Rosso]

Ridiculous really. Feel for Pearson. Hope he does well elsewhere, he deserves success.

 

[PFKAKTF FOX]

I think Pearson has been treated poorly, however the reason for the timing of his exit is pretty clear, it was an opportunity to lose Pearson without the negative publicity that would have been associated had he been sacked by the new consortium off the back of two very successful seasons.

Truth is whilst Pearson is an excellent manager, he simply desn't have the profile or marketability that Sousa offers. However I do not blame Sousa for this and will continue to support him, but I am not particuarly proud or happy with how the club has treated Pearson.