Ranieri out
- Thread starter Micky
- Start date
- Status
TornadoShaunUK
Well-Known Member
It is admirable, don't see it from many clubs these days but it's not always in the best interests of the club. Look at Derby when they kept Clough on for god knows how long waiting for improvement when it was painfully obvious it was never coming. That said, the financial situation is the main worry for me so if there is a wage drop on the cards in the event of getting relegated than at least the club has had the sense to do that this time around. Really hope that is true, because I can't see Ranieri turning this around this season and we obviously don't want the club to be risking entering admin or at risk of closure that we came painfully close to due to chronic mismanagement a decade or two ago.
yackandandah
Active Member
Yep, the club can hold its head up high in relegation!
Well we bucked the trend in winning, didn't we? Why shouldn't we also buck it in going down? What cost loyalty, they ask. Millions of pounds is probably the answer!
Doesn't sound as though I'm supportive does it? Just to be clear, I am. I think it's exactly the right thing for the club to do.
Miles Away
Well-Known Member
Yup, hes going nowhere.
The Old Fox
Well-Known Member
I agree with those who read the club statement as fact, rather than the first stage to dismissal. Whether one was in favour of change, or no, this thread now becomes irrelevant and we have to get behind Claudio and the players.
FIF
Well-Known Member
Or claudio and some of the players.
Releasing a public statement is an unusual move for the club. They didn't feel the need to publicly reconfirm their support for Pearson when he had us deep in the mire two years ago. I can't see the club pandering to the media and there has been no large scale dissent yet in the stands that might require a response. If they wanted to send a message to the players they could have easily done it in private, and from what i've seen of the club over the last few years anything that can be kept private is kept private.
I don't know. To me this does feel much more like a dreaded vote of confidence than a literal one. I don't think the FA Cup will trigger anything, but another meek loss in the league against Swansea and I think Claudio is gone.
I don't know. To me this does feel much more like a dreaded vote of confidence than a literal one. I don't think the FA Cup will trigger anything, but another meek loss in the league against Swansea and I think Claudio is gone.
camberwell fox
Well-Known Member
I don't wish to be rude but that's codswallop.
Neither were really votes of confidence. The first was in response to speculation that they'd been tapping up Harry Redknapp. The 2nd was an absolutely necessary clarification after the fake sacking incident. They're not the same as issuing a totally voluntary vote of confidence as they have done today.
Which part of it?
You are aware votes of confidence end in the manager being sacked in many, possibly even most cases?
camberwell fox
Well-Known Member
In most cases I would agree with you but in this case their word is important, and if they say he stays, I 100% believe they will be good to their word.
They have something that most other owners couldn't dream of and it's called loyalty.
They believed NP was disloyal and acted inappropriately in supporting his son publicly even though I think they would accept that privately blood is thicker than water.
We are incredibly fortunate to have such principled and generous owners imo.
City Fan
Well-Known Member
What happened to their loyalty when they practically pushed Pearson out to bring in Sousa?
They don't call it a dreaded vote of confidence for nothing. If we lose against Swansea he'll be out the door.
FIF
Well-Known Member
Who calls it a dreaded vote of confidence?
Blaarev
Well-Known Member
Wasn't it Mandaric who was in charge when Pearson was allowed to talk to Hull?
SwedeFox
Well-Known Member
Yep.
They were fairly swift in sacking Sven. I don't know if there was more going on than just the league table position there but I remember we were fairly surprised at the time. Maybe they had a look at Richie Wellens' new contract and took immediate action.
camberwell fox
Well-Known Member
They didn't.
City Fan
Well-Known Member
I could be wrong but I think the whole Sousa/Pearson thing was the owners working in the background.
Even if they are loyal, that will only stretch too far. I wonder how loyal they'll be if we're bottom of the table come Sunday evening.
City Fan
Well-Known Member
Wasn't there a game where Mandaric had the new owners and Paolo Sousa as guests?
- Status
Championship
| P | Pld | Pts | |
| 1 | Leicester | 46 | 97 |
| 2 | Ipswich | 46 | 96 |
| 3 | Leeds Utd | 46 | 90 |
| 4 | Southampton | 46 | 87 |
| 5 | West Brom | 46 | 75 |
| 6 | Norwich City | 46 | 73 |
| 7 | Hull City | 46 | 70 |
| 8 | Middlesbro | 46 | 69 |
| 9 | Coventry City | 46 | 64 |
| 10 | Preston | 46 | 63 |
| 11 | Bristol City | 46 | 62 |
| 12 | Cardiff City | 46 | 62 |
| 13 | Millwall | 46 | 59 |
| 14 | Swansea City | 46 | 57 |
| 15 | Watford | 46 | 56 |
| 16 | Sunderland | 46 | 56 |
| 17 | Stoke City | 46 | 56 |
| 18 | QPR | 46 | 56 |
| 19 | Blackburn | 46 | 53 |
| 20 | Sheffield W | 46 | 53 |
| 21 | Plymouth | 46 | 51 |
| 22 | Birmingham | 46 | 50 |
| 23 | Huddersfield | 46 | 45 |
| 24 | Rotherham Utd | 46 | 27 |
