BathRam72 Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Reading through the lines and this is all speculation of course. If Pearson nearly came to blows with MM then I suspect he would have been given his marching orders straight away. Which suggests to me that there might be two sides to the argument i.e he said she said, and this would need an investigation as to who is in the right. On the other hand if Pearson thinks he is innocent or hard done by then he would be fighting his corner. If he believed his job was gone then he would have walked by now I guess. So, like I said IF this is true then maybe there is some truth in it that someone/few have made a complaint and this is being investigated to see if it is the truth or just hear say. I hope that all makes sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 7 minutes ago, brady1993 said: I really fail to see how voicing concerns about your manager to the man above him is unprofessional. Actually if the concerns are legitimate and they've gone about it the right way, it'd be very professional. Which sounds to be the case. What sounds unprofessional is Pearson's reaction to it. the thing is, these players never even 'started' to play for him, let alone 'stopped' playing for him. What's unprofessional is that they never properly applied themselves to his methods, which they should have, whether they like it or not. Obviously his methods are not unreasonable, or he would have been sacked, which, these players, in refusing a reasonable request to perform their duties as required, were breaking their contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I agree with some of that Mostyn but if the instructions from the boss are unclear and the the feedback is less than productive the players are never going to buy in or be able to perform at required levels. I am not saying that is the case because lets be honest none of us know exactly what has gone on, but it might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 7 minutes ago, BathRam72 said: Reading through the lines and this is all speculation of course. If Pearson nearly came to blows with MM then I suspect he would have been given his marching orders straight away. Which suggests to me that there might be two sides to the argument i.e he said she said, and this would need an investigation as to who is in the right. No, it would be perfectly normal to start formal disciplinary proceedings, rather than just sack him on the spot. It's got to be done by the book, or the legal ramifications could go on for ever. He'd only be kicked out immediately if he'd come in & threatened to kill or something. 7 minutes ago, BathRam72 said: On the other hand if Pearson thinks he is innocent or hard done by then he would be fighting his corner. If he believed his job was gone then he would have walked by now I guess. ...and miss out on any compensation payment?. Unlikely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brady1993 Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 1 minute ago, Mostyn6 said: the thing is, these players never even 'started' to play for him, let alone 'stopped' playing for him. What's unprofessional is that they never properly applied themselves to his methods, which they should have, whether they like it or not. This is largely just pure speculation because we don't see what goes off behind the scenes. It's difficult to tell how much of the woeful performances were down to player application or being asked to do something they struggled doing. I suspect it was the latter but I can only go off what I've witnessed. 5 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said: Obviously his methods are not unreasonable, or he would have been sacked, which, these players, in refusing a reasonable request to perform their duties as required, were breaking their contract. Again this is largely speculation. We don't know how closely Pearson was being watched by higher up to see if the methods are being unreasonable. Perhaps they repeatedly voiced concerns to Pearson about it and felt they were being ignored. Maybe it wasn't his methods, maybe over the previous weeks his approach changed. Maybe he started bollocking players for little to know reason in training. Who knows ? What I was trying to point out was that the simple act of complaining about your manager to the guy above him isn't unprofessional by itself. We lack facts regarding the actual goings on, all we know for sure is Pearson has been suspended for unprofessional conduct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 16 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said: Quote What's unprofessional is that they never properly applied themselves to his methods, which they should have, whether they like it or not. Obviously his methods are not unreasonable, or he would have been sacked, which, these players, in refusing a reasonable request to perform their duties as required, were breaking their contract. You have zero evidence they behaved unprofessionally. Either in training or in competitive matches. Weren't very good at it and didnt like it are bleeding obvious, but to be unprofessional and to say a reasonable method not being adheared to would equate to these results is a bit of a jump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 6 minutes ago, brady1993 said: This is largely just pure speculation because we don't see what goes off behind the scenes. It's difficult to tell how much of the woeful performances were down to player application or being asked to do something they struggled doing. I suspect it was the latter but I can only go off what I've witnessed. Again this is largely speculation. We don't know how closely Pearson was being watched by higher up to see if the methods are being unreasonable. Perhaps they repeatedly voiced concerns to Pearson about it and felt they were being ignored. Maybe it wasn't his methods, maybe over the previous weeks his approach changed. Maybe he started bollocking players for little to know reason in training. Who knows ? What I was trying to point out was that the simple act of complaining about your manager to the guy above him isn't unprofessional by itself. We lack facts regarding the actual goings on, all we know for sure is Pearson has been suspended for unprofessional conduct. Sam Rush is the man to complain to though. Not the trigger happy owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 5 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said: I agree with some of that Mostyn but if the instructions from the boss are unclear and the the feedback is less than productive the players are never going to buy in or be able to perform at required levels. I am not saying that is the case because lets be honest none of us know exactly what has gone on, but it might be. It doesn't even need to be that the instructions were unclear. Johnson and Butterfield will never ever be flying wingers, no matter how professional they are, how hard they work, how much passion they show, they're just not physically capable of doing that role. Likewise, Vydra and Bent will never be genuine target men capable of dealing with high balls. And the rest of the squad seem to be being asked to do things they've never ever even looked capable of doing. Bryson for example, has spent his entire career being a free-running attacking midfielder - if you ask him to sit in midfield and specifically not do any running at all, it's not lack of professionalism if he struggles doing it. You can't just click your fingers and expect players to instantly switch to doing something that goes completely counter to what they're been doing for their entire career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 1 minute ago, duncanjwitham said: It doesn't even need to be that the instructions were unclear. Johnson and Butterfield will never ever be flying wingers, no matter how professional they are, how hard they work, how much passion they show, they're just not physically capable of doing that role. Likewise, Vydra and Bent will never be genuine target men capable of dealing with high balls. And the rest of the squad seem to be being asked to do things they've never ever even looked capable of doing. Bryson for example, has spent his entire career being a free-running attacking midfielder - if you ask him to sit in midfield and specifically not do any running at all, it's not lack of professionalism if he struggles doing it. You can't just click your fingers and expect players to instantly switch to doing something that goes completely counter to what they're been doing for their entire career. Well put, in a roundabout way that is what I was getting at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralRam Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Wolfie said: Let's not pretend we didn't know what we were getting when Pearson was hired. We all knew what sort of bloke he is and many were saying that's what the club/squad needed. Clearly it hasn't worked & losing the dressing room as quick as he has is something of an achievement. If this story is true..... For those using it as ammunition against Mel, just think for a minute about what Mel was supposed to do if a group of players go and complain to him?. Of course he's going to need to bring it to the attention of the manager - as would happen in any business. Knowing NP's temperament, any such meeting was always going to be confrontational & at least we now may not have to pay him off if sacked for misconduct. But that's the thing! The chairman should have no interaction with the players. The manager is should be the furthest escalation point and the chairman should be completely out of the picture! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brady1993 Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 5 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said: Sam Rush is the man to complain to though. Not the trigger happy owner. Your right he his. But as we only have a tabloid rag to go off for a source of information on this, I think it's foolish to get up in arms about this. After all 'The players went to Rush, who decided it would be best for them to have a meeting with Morris' can quickly become 'Players have meeting with Morris'. Mel Morris may have even requested the meeting himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 2 minutes ago, GeneralRam said: But that's the thing! The chairman should have no interaction with the players. The manager is should be the furthest escalation point and the chairman should be completely out of the picture! Not at all. It depends on the chain of command. I don't know the structure of the club but if Morris is NP's boss, then of course he would need to be involved. At work, my boss is one of the company directors. If I want to complain about him, I'd have to go right to the top & talk to the owners. That's just how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 4 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said: Mel said the milk goes in first, Nigel wasn't having it. In which case, I have to side with Pearson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nottingram Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I think it's about time we stop thinking of the players as objects or commodities and start thinking of them as human beings. If you need an arm round your shoulder and instead get a rocket up your arse, that is plainly and simply bad management. It's not unprofessional to complain to your manager's superior if you're not happy with how you're being treated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannable Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Powell is good friends with Pearson, clearly. Cardiff post match shows that he is still loyal to him. If the players were massively out of order and "snaked" Pearson why would Powell stay and manage them after what they did to his friend? Why would Powell stay and work with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambusta Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 It also begs the question how they (the players) would have coped with a "hairdrier" from Fegie or a "rollicking" from BC....OK the dressingroom may have been "lost" but its not as if Pearson could just sack some of them for not trying...some pressure must be coming from above to play players that had recently cost alot of money just to have them either benched or in the U23... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheron85 Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 1 minute ago, cannable said: Powell is good friends with Pearson, clearly. Cardiff post match shows that he is still loyal to him. He's a smart and shrewd guy... And a professional... Loyalty aside... You don't publicly slag off people you worked with, you don't bad mouth a guy who's just left and you say nice things about them... That's the way to behave professionally... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteHorseRam Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 2 minutes ago, Rambusta said: It also begs the question how they (the players) would have coped with a "hairdrier" from Fegie or a "rollicking" from BC....OK the dressingroom may have been "lost" but its not as if Pearson could just sack some of them for not trying...some pressure must be coming from above to play players that had recently cost alot of money just to have them either benched or in the U23... There are a lot of 'big' players in the squad (ex prem and Internationals), I think you can detect a frustration that they aren't in the automatic spots. This goes back to Wassall and 3-3 Rotherham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Ramarena said: Two worrying things stand out in this scenario, obviously Pearson's behaviour and the fact that we took on a manager this volatile, but also the players grouping together and stating they don't want to work for a manager is a very worrying sign! IF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Anyone know the shackell situation? Responding to treatment serms awfully vague Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.