da realsbet： Some say things happen for a reason, others blame mysterious ways. Some jump to conclusions prematurely, while others just shrug their shoulders. The sacking of Nigel Pearson is an example of this sort of bewilderment – pundits and fans expressed shock that a manager could keep his team up in almost impossible circumstances and still be sacked. But sacked he has been.
da betway： And yet I can’t help feeling that this is all so reminiscent of Malky Mackay’s dismissal at Cardiff. Everyone thought Vincent Tan was nuts, but it turned out that Mackay was in the wrong, and not the sort of character Tan wanted at the helm of his club. When the text messages and racism allegations came out there was a collective ‘ohhh – I see’. The ‘ohhh’ moment here might just happen soon, and it will probably have something to do with a sex tape.
But it feels a little late to sack Pearson because of a tape that surfaced a month ago of a group of Leicester players in a fairly distasteful position. The fact that Pearson’s son was involved might point to guilt by association, but if the board think that’s real guilt and if they think that’s a sackable offence then they’re charmlessly deluded.
But even if they are that deluded, why wouldn’t they sack him it straight away? That suggests they weren’t going to blame the father for the sins of the son in the first place, so it’s strange to hear that the tape may have had some bearing on the decision.
So what happened in the meantime?
Speculation is futile, really. It doesn’t help us get to the bottom of the issue because we’ll never know until they tell us. But it’s worth doing it as a cautionary tale for others. It shows us that the Leicester board have either got this really right, or they’ve got it really wrong.
So if the tape is to blame, the most obvious conclusion is that Pearson has been less than contrite in his actions over this. Maybe he tried to stand up for his son and been sacked because of something he said.
That would seem to make sense given the Leicester City statement claims ‘differences in perspective’ were what forced the decision and given what the media have reported about fact it might have something to do with the tape.
Surely the board knew Pearson would stick up for his son? You can’t sack him for loving his family.
But why sack him at all if it wasn’t about this incident?
The answer might have something to do with Pearson’s personality. He doesn’t come across as a very nice guy, but then all we have to go on is his attitude towards the media.
The board, for their part, might see him as brash, crass and maybe unsavoury. And that’s not the image they want for their club. The sex tape perhaps reinforced that in their minds.
But if that’s the case, why not sack him months ago when he seemed to go mental on the touchline, swearing at fans and attacking players? What about when he called a journalist an ostrich? And they had a footballing reason to sack him then, too – they were bottom of the table and looked like going down. And that just makes his success all the more impressive.
And that’s why it looks like Pearson wasn’t just sacked for his son’s crime. What his son did was indefensible, but the father didn’t do it. If it was because he stood up for his son, then you have to wonder what the board expected him to do. Any father who loves his son would want to protect him.
In fact, that’s one of Pearson’s best qualities as a manager – the reason he attacked fans and journalists last season was because he was sticking up for his players. Whether that makes sense to us or not, that’s how Pearson saw it. And the fact that all the spotlight was on the manager definitely took the pressure off the players.
So surely Leicester didn’t just sack Pearson because of that one incident. Surely they sacked him because that was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
And in some ways that makes it worse. Because if they didn’t like him anyway, they should’ve sacked him when he’d done something wrong, not when his son did. If they hated their manager anyway they should’ve sacked him earlier – if that’s the case, the very best we can call them is cowards.
This is not to say that the revelations about what happened won’t be favourable to the board and explain their decision. After all, I’m speculating here. And I’m speculating because I’m so baffled by the decision. There must be an ‘ohhh’ moment at some point that completely vindicates this decision because right now it still looks like a harsh one. But now is not the time for assigning blame, because we just don’t know the facts.
Maybe in the next few weeks we’ll hear the whole story, and then we can decide who’s right and wrong. For now, the story is a cautionary tale for managers to be nicer in the way they handle the press and the situations that arise during the season, because it might well contribute to your downfall over an incident you had literally nothing to do with. For owners and chairmen, it shows that if you stick by a manager then you need to do it because you actually think he’s the man to lead your team, because if you hate him already then you’ll just end up sacking him later, even when he’s done nothing wrong.
[ad_pod id=’ricco’ align=’center’]