JohnnyFartPants

So, in essense...... Yadda, yadda, yadda, Still mainly a youth team, still Dutch bloke in charge, loaned out loads of players (by the way "loaned" as opposed to sell offers you the option to recall, I think that's the point!!) You have no proof of this sacking which I dare say is now fact in your twisted head. Oh, and yes, the more experienced players are now being recalled. Had the youth turned out to be fantastic, he wouldn't have, as they have floundered, option B allowed for this. Isn't it refreshing to have a board with a plan B? I see no climbdown. He is merely utilising facilities which were always left open to him.

I predict a good run of results starting now. I just have a feeling that players coming back and a new man in charge is going to give us the boost we need. Also, I think the Watford game being called off has been a huge blessing.

Have you yet found out who is to blame for ASDA's rotten apples?

Yes, I exaggerated a point to make a point. Do you get my point?

Charity is just taxation through guilt.

Avram Grant is the big rumour.

That makes sense!! So you are in favour of a workplace bullying system where the employee should take all manner of abuse unless they do their work to your ideal standard? Fair enough, you can argue that this is football and it is different from a normal job, but that works both ways. If it is an accepted stance to give abuse to a player then why not the other way around. To be against that makes the baiting crowd come across as cheap cowards in my book, if they can't take a bit of what they dish out.

No, it really is. Crouch told me.

I think it's called being balanced, something you fail to be. If I said that ASDA were selling rotten apples you would blame Lowe.

Nieveity is spelt like this. Fact.

Possibly not but to think it now of Pearson is a bit blinkered. Half a season with a club too big for the division they find themselves in is not conclusive proof of him being the best thing since sliced bread.

Surely that argument cuts both ways. Typing "given to believe" is not making what you type a fact is it?

Are you basing him having done enough to be retained on being happy at the end of the season as we stayed up rather than points actually won? I mean, if he did enough then perhaps we should have been happier under Burley or considered Dodd and Gorman too.

Actually, an eye for an eye makes both sides function with only one eye, thus realising the consequences of their actions. Not blind, but educated and now changed for the better.

I don't think that it is an obvious decision that he should have stayed or a paper thin case that he should have gone. He had a pretty poor performance ratio really and you are merely allowing your vision of accounts to be blurred based on his theatrics on the sideline and that he has done okay at Leicester. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. What was also 20/20 before this season started was his poor win rate last season. Managers have good and bad times and I dare say you would have been one of those to saying "Lowe's decision to bring in WGS on the cheap is paper thin, he has a proven record of being rubbish." Football is all about gambles but on the evidence to use on Pearson, which was all we had to go on, it was not a huge risk to get rid, therefore not paper thin in the slightest.

It is my belief that an eye for eye approach across the board, justice wise would make the world a better place, like it used to be.

That is what I was thinking. I dare say some jealous abuse was being given to the players who then returned it and things came to a head. I think we expect too much of football players in some ways. Young men that stand on a pitch and take abuse from visiting fans and in our case often our own, then have to carry on as if it doesn't affect them. Cantona took it a step too far but you can see how a player could easily just give abuse back. The amount of times a few fans report players for mouthing something to the crowd when for 90 minutes far worse and more personnal stuff has been addressed towards them is astounding.

Well it clears up that he wasn't sacked too. I am convinced I read somewhere that he couldn't agree terms though, but either way, he wasn't sacked.

I wasn't overly impressed with Pearson but maybe we do him an injustice. If you come in to save a team from going down with only a limited number of games, your hands are pretty much tied until the end of the season. A whole new mindset and way to play could end in disaster with players not able to gel in time. Even a drastic formation change could cause havoc, so what does it leave you? Not much more than trying to be an inspiration from the sidelines, a lively figure using non stop encouragement and building confidence. I suppose to his credit he did this well and maybe had we stuck with him he may have been able to show his full hand this season. Equally, he might have been a barrel of poo.

I thought they were just in caretaker manager mode and the most official it ever got was the words "we want it long term" being mentioned. I could be wrong.

I am convinced I read that he was interviewed and offered a revamped contract and that he chose not to accept it. This was before the Dutch thing all kicked off.

It was a message announced by the football club. Pearson was free to dispute it and give his version of accounts but didn't. I think to be honest if something is publically said and not challenged then we have to accept it as the truth. Either that or conjour up conspiracies as to why Pearson couldn't possibly counter lies made on his behalf.

Totally uncalled for. He has mentioned throughout that it is something he heard and not an ironed on fact. Why speak to him like that? If there is a stone being used as a roof, may I suggest it could be above your head?

If company shareholders vote to bin someone from the payroll and then pay them off, then the receiver has done nothing wrong in accepting his severence pay. If that person later puts himself forward to be re-employed and the shareholders decide to go for it, then he has still done nothing wrong. I know a few instances in "real life" like this. My mate once applied internally for his bosses job and they overlooked him. He resigned. Someone else got it and within 6 months they left. He then applied for the job and got it plus a lot more money than was originally offered.

It isn't semantics really. It is just a more accurate description of events. Pearson wasn't sacked because he was offered further employment. The wages were not of his liking so he decided to seek work elsewhere. That is the facts of it, so therefore not a sacking. It is impossible to find out what he was offered to stay but unless it can be proved to be an underhand move where by Lowe later paid a higher wage for the Dutch experiment then it cannot be assumed that the cloth was artificially trimmed in order to make Pearson decide to leave, which seems to be the implication you are making.