Pearson Sacked!

[Blaarev]

Pearson junior to take the club to an employment tribunal? Perhaps making Pearson seniors position untenable?

Speculation? Or have you heard something?

 

[Ike O'Noclassed]

Pearson junior to take the club to an employment tribunal? Perhaps making Pearson seniors position untenable?

Speculation? Or have you heard something?

From the Mail report on Neil Lennon etc

Upon returning to Leicester, Hopper was immediately issued with a letter terminating his contract, while Adam Smith and James Pearson had separate disciplinary meetings to determine their fate.

James had two hearings with chief executive Susan Whelan with a PFA representative for support, and was sacked afterwards. The announcement covering the trio was made a fortnight ago.

Sportsmail can reveal that James is deciding whether to appeal against the decision, with assistance from the PFA. Hopper and Smith last week found employment with Scunthorpe and Northampton respectively but Pearson has not, making the situation more acute.

 

[alex]

Seriously?

 

[rjk]

Cheer up RJK. You are wise to realise your thinking about the last 35 years is skewed. I would guess this is also true of those who disagree with you. . Only a fool thinks they understand their own time.

We know nothing of the fateful board meeting and the reasons for the decision. They may indeed have spent their time discussing "neocon/lib economic ideology".

I've no need to 'Cheer up' David. I'm perfectly happy, thank you. Slightly concerned about what's going on at my football club, but otherwise full of the joys of summer (though the hay fever isn't brilliant).
My mention of neo lib/con was in relation to the attitudes on show here about the personal beliefs of the board, nothing more. It seems many members here find it hard to fathom the possibility of a decision taken for any reason but money.
If you had bothered to read my post properly you would have seen me state quite clearly - and in other posts I've made - that none of us know for certain what went on in the decision to sack NP. One thing I think I can say without fear of contradiction though, is that at no point would the board have discussed neo-lib economic political theory during said meeting. And I never suggested they had done so.

 

[jb5000]

I've no need to 'Cheer up' David. I'm perfectly happy, thank you. Slightly concerned about what's going on at my football club, but otherwise full of the joys of summer (though the hay fever isn't brilliant).
My mention of neo lib/con was in relation to the attitudes on show here about the personal beliefs of the board, nothing more. It seems many members here find it hard to fathom the possibility of a decision taken for any reason but money.
If you had bothered to read my post properly you would have seen me state quite clearly - and in other posts I've made - that none of us know for certain what went on in the decision to sack NP. One thing I think I can say without fear of contradiction though, is that at no point would the board have discussed neo-lib economic political theory during said meeting. And I never suggested they had done so.

As I'm sure you're aware, since nobody ever coined those phrases incorrectly, neoliberalism and neoconservatism are two entirely different things. I'm unclear what attitudes you've seen here display support for these philosophies, let alone the narrow areas where they intersect. Personally, the support I've seen here for the suggestion that a man to be fired for the actions of his adult children reminds me of those who called for the parents of children/young adults who rioted around the country a couple of years ago to lose access to social housing and/or social security - calls which were correctly seen as being deeply conservative, but not really from any neoconservative stream of thought.

 

[rjk]

I'm not going to be lectured on this by someone who liked a post describing our board as 'dodgy Thais'. You seem to have a problem with me, there is a simple answer.

 

[jb5000]

I'm not going to be lectured on this by someone who liked a post describing our board as 'dodgy Thais'. You seem to have a problem with me, there is a simple answer.

Well if you're comfy with the owners of this club cosying up to a military junta in their homeland, no doubt in order to further their extensive business interests while being complicit in the impoverishing of their countrymen; who have bought our club as, at best, a vehicle for their business interests but more likely as a toy for their egos; and who now seem to be exporting some pretty vile views on family life - I guess there's nothing dodgy to see here and we can all move along. And yes, I'm well aware that my jaundiced view of the board has some intersections with that of a neo-conservative, but I feel quite comfortable with the clear blue water elsewhere.

As for having a problem with you, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm glad there are people on here with the hinterland and willingness to talk about more than 22 blokes chasing a pigskin. We disagree on some things, but such is life. I suspect that if we were to meet, we'd happily sup a pint or two over a pleasant evening in the pub. Perhaps you should take DG's (we should invite him too) advice and 'cheer up' ;-)

 

[Dour]

...at no point would the board have discussed neo-lib economic political theory during said meeting.

I wouldn't be so sure. Becoming a billionaire through a government contract - what could be more neoliberal than that? Maybe they do like to sit around and discuss the underlying reasons for their good fortune.

 

[Volpone]

From the Mail report on Neil Lennon etc

 

[Volpone]

'James had two hearings with chief executive Susan Whelan with a PFA representative for support, and was sacked afterwards.
James is deciding whether to appeal against the decision, with assistance from the PFA.'

It is becoming clear that the 'difference in perception' is that Pearson senior is supporting his son's outrageous behaviour whilst everyone else condemns it, including the board of directors. This being the case, I now fully support their decision to sack him.

How he can believe he was going to win that argument is beyond me.

 

[SJN-Fox]

NP's "I'll say what I want and behave how I want" attitude was bound to catch up with him in the end.

 

[jb5000]

'James had two hearings with chief executive Susan Whelan with a PFA representative for support, and was sacked afterwards.
James is deciding whether to appeal against the decision, with assistance from the PFA.'

It is becoming clear that the 'difference in perception' is that Pearson senior is supporting his son's outrageous behaviour whilst everyone else condemns it, including the board of directors. This being the case, I now fully support their decision to sack him.

How he can believe he was going to win that argument is beyond me.

I'm mystified as to how the passage you've quoted makes that clear.

 

[camberwell fox]

My opinion fwiw in any other job if your son was sacked but had no link to his fathers employment it would be difficult to sack the father unless his name was splashed over the papers and the association is clear and brings the company into disrepute.

In this instance even if NP did not support his son it could be said that :

1. If NP's son has such low moral values, where have these come from?
2. Why didn't NP control all of his players while on a work visit?
3. The link between father and son both in terms of relation and employer are clear.
4. He did not publicly distance himself and criticise his son via the media to ensure the media were clear on his stance on this.

I am at the very least disappointed that NP has been sacked and I was really looking forward to the forthcoming season and what I thought it held.

As I said elsewhere though this is the correct moral decision in terms of father and son, it protects our brand and our club.

It shows moral fortitude and it shows standards that other clubs should aspire to.

I wish NP all the best but this really was the straw that broke the camels back.

 

[Volpone]

I'm mystified as to how the passage you've quoted makes that clear.

Well, it's pretty obvious to me. You probably only watch soaps.

 

[Ike O'Noclassed]

The only deduction I'd made from that snippet (Have I missed something here, is the transcript of the hearing in the public domain or were fms of high moral standing present?) is that Pearson fils' grievance is that he didn't utter the racist remark. More speculatively, that he had nothing to do with the public posting of the video; and that the women were part of the hospitality package supplied by the club. As for NP's culpability as father, you could just as easily argue the owners have used this to finesse him out of the club.

 

[jb5000]

• If NP's son has such low moral values, where have these come from?

James Pearson is an adult, with his own agency and responsibility for his actions. Although I'm sure your own children have absolutely clean noses, you wouldn't want to lose your livelihood from their actions.

• Why didn't NP control all of his players while on a work visit?

So as well as his work coaching the players, working the transfer market, and communicating tactics and matchplans, Pearson is supposed to be some kind of tour guide? Should the club have organised control staff, experts in that field or not, of the adults they employ?

• The link between father and son both in terms of relation and employer are clear.

The employer in both cases was LCFC, that's clear.

• He did not publicly distance himself and criticise his son via the media to ensure the media were clear on his stance on this.

We all noted how quiet the club was about this from the get go. Do you think Pearson should have broken the media curfew the club clearly had in place to comment in either direction?

 

[camberwell fox]

• If NP's son has such low moral values, where have these come from?

James Pearson is an adult, with his own agency and responsibility for his actions. Although I'm sure your own children have absolutely clean noses, you wouldn't want to lose your livelihood from their actions.

My children are very young so not really a good comparison. He has at least part lost his job because the employer is tge same company - always somewhat risky!

• Why didn't NP control all of his players while on a work visit?

So as well as his work coaching the players, working the transfer market, and communicating tactics and matchplans, Pearson is supposed to be some kind of tour guide? Should the club have organised control staff, experts in that field or not, of the adults they employ?

He is called a manager and paid a kings ransom to manage. A tour guide no, a manager yes.

• The link between father and son both in terms of relation and employer are clear.

The employer in both cases was LCFC, that's clear.

I don't understand if this is a rebuttal or an agreement?

• He did not publicly distance himself and criticise his son via the media to ensure the media were clear on his stance on this.

We all noted how quiet the club was about this from the get go. Do you think Pearson should have broken the media curfew the club clearly had in place to comment in either direction?

In his tenuous position, yes it would have been smart.

 

[jb5000]

In his tenuous position, yes it would have been smart.

You think a tenuous position would have been improved by breaching the club's protocols for dealing with the media?

 

[camberwell fox]

Some of my answers are in the main part of the post - I couldn't alter it

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

The major factor is obviously the Bangkok incident. It does not matter if Pearson defended his son or not. Son's contract will have disrepute clause in it, as would Nigel's contract. They probably could have activated Nigel's clause on several occasions during the season, but chose not to for footballing reasons.

Both brought shame on the club, and it would have been the Manager's responsibility to remind all players and staff on a company goodwill visit what is and is not acceptable behaviour.

There was part of one article that suggested that 'perspective' may have included not sharing the same vision going forward. This could have been about owners wanting maybe higher profile players in to risk a faster push up the table, that maybe Nigel thought would not fit his player profile of attitude, work ethic etc. Maybe a talented version of Beckford for instance?