Foxello - I remember last time this happened, Pearson spoke to John Sinclair instead. But Sinclair's not there any more and Jason Bourne insists on acting like a Stringer groupie and banterista so Pearson probably thinks like I do and puts them in the same bracket. Besides which, Radio Leicester are taking a different approach to last time and backing their man. They didn't do it enough last time and they're doing it too much this time. There has to be a happy medium somewhere.
Nev - Pearson's current legacy is two promotions, one from League 1 and the other from the Championship. Whether it will eventually be soured somewhat remains unclear, but it's surely positive, regardless of the occasional negative like the "f off and die" incident (for which he's had a lot of support both inside and outside our fanbase).
BlackStarr - I don't much like to get involved with forum politics, but please don't resort to complaining to admin or filtering. It does nobody any good in what's just a lively debate between two separate viewpoints.
Completely wrong but really shows what a fantastic contributor you are to these boards...... I rest my case my lud
comment by Nevsaysagoal2city (U5194)
posted 8 minutes ago
Foxy your are going to get nailed but i agree word for word. Stringy has cocked up but NP is using to his advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No he isn't because he posts his thoughts in a reasoned and rational way without making up 'facts'.
Owed Nev, on a hiding to nothing once again
"Now its come out i can mention it there where reports from within the club that NP was on his way and thats why RL went in hard."
--------
Don't you see that this illustrates the problem? Why should Radio Leicester be "going in hard" in such a situation? Reports or otherwise, their job is to report, not to dive onto some sort of scandal like a pack of wolves finding a wounded moose. That's really bad behaviour and it's no wonder that the club have reacted the way they have to it - to the point where they may even be happy to take the consequences of breaking a contractual obligation!
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 59 seconds ago
Foxello - I remember last time this happened, Pearson spoke to John Sinclair instead. But Sinclair's not there any more and Jason Bourne insists on acting like a Stringer groupie and banterista so Pearson probably thinks like I do and puts them in the same bracket. Besides which, Radio Leicester are taking a different approach to last time and backing their man. They didn't do it enough last time and they're doing it too much this time. There has to be a happy medium somewhere.
Nev - Pearson's current legacy is two promotions, one from League 1 and the other from the Championship. Whether it will eventually be soured somewhat remains unclear, but it's surely positive, regardless of the occasional negative like the "f off and die" incident (for which he's had a lot of support both inside and outside our fanbase).
BlackStarr - I don't much like to get involved with forum politics, but please don't resort to complaining to admin or filtering. It does nobody any good in what's just a lively debate between two separate viewpoints.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dunge, I'm making no threats to go to admin, merely using lcfc69 as an example of the depths Nev is plunging to. The filtering comment was to show what a huge baby the guy is. I had to request admin to unfilter him because of his ludicrous reaction. I've no desire to put everyone through that again
comment by Nevsaysagoal2city (U5194)
posted 4 minutes ago
Dung its not a divine right its a contractual obligation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prove it.
"No he isn't because he posts his thoughts in a reasoned and rational way without making up 'facts'. "
That's just about the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me on here - I'm sure there are others who think you're off your rocker with that comment
Your welcome Foxello. While I don't always agree with your view, the way you put it across is excellent in my view
comment by Nevsaysagoal2city (U5194)
posted 9 minutes ago
Completely wrong but really shows what a fantastic contributor you are to these boards...... I rest my case my lud
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If only......
I'm interested to know if anyone with any sufficient level of legal experience would know if we, as the general public, could request information from the BBC regarding their contract with LCFC under the Freedom of Information Act? Or would this lie outside of the parameters of FOIA?
"comment by Foxello (U6985)
posted 11 minutes ago
"No he isn't because he posts his thoughts in a reasoned and rational way without making up 'facts'. "
That's just about the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me on here - I'm sure there are others who think you're off your rocker with that comment "
--------
BlackStarr, you're off your rocker.
I wouldn't know the details of contractual requesting by the way Foxello, but it's an interesting question. Part of me says no because it's not personal data, but also part of me says maybe you can because it's supposedly a public organisation.
But either way, I don't believe that it's relevant. It's not Pearson himself who's breaking such a contract, it's the club's decision. In fact, if there is a contract then it shows how much the club is choosing to back him over this.
Normally, Foxello, this would apply to 'Public Authorities' of which the BBC isn't. There are also a number of 'exemptions'.
Don't quote me but I believe this will be a difficult one.
I'm broadly with the majority view here (ie not with Nev, JG and Foxello - and that doesn't mean I deny them the right to their view). I do however wish that Stringer would apologise/whatever and get the interviews back on RL so we did not have to listen to fill-ins from the Palace match etc. I actually like Stringer, it's good to have an LCFC fan behind the mike, but he needs to be more professional about it.
The Henry Winter interview was a breath of fresh air with some really interesting insights into Pearson and just shows what can be teased out of him if you approach an interview in the right way. For anybody who missed it - here it is: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/leicester-city/10610721/Leicester-City-manager-Nigel-Pearson-happy-to-keep-away-from-the-pack-at-top-of-the-Championship.html
Foxello - as you have raised the possibility of relegation, my view is that I'd like to see someone in charge who would make the team competitive in the Championship, also preferably have some experience of operating in the EPL so that he would have a chance of keeping us up there. Let's see now, who's the best fit for those requirements I can think of? One Nigel Pearson. OK he'll do, also he knows the club and players inside out.
It's strange how many people are saying that they are bored/uninterested by this debate yet it's already generated 63 comments. That would imply the contrary. I won't comment because I genuinely am (bored/uninterested).
Nice to see Foxello back. JG and Foxello active on these boards again. It must be safe to come out. The writing really is on the wall.
I'm now just awaiting an appearance from the Grim Reaper himself.
Don't worry Joby, it's only a flying visit I genuinely don't have enough time to dedicate to these boards any more.
Nuneaton
You make a fair comment, however I think Pearson has run his course here. It's starting to go stale. Time for fresh blood and new ideas next season.
Joby I'm bored with Nevs continual raising of the RL issue on every article but it doesn't mean I don't get annoyed with his continual verbal garbage being presented as absolute fact.
It's like a chef telling you he's prepared an authentic Italian meal with red wine for you to enjoy and then watching him defrost a pack of Birds eye potato waffles which he serves up with a glass of vimto.
This is a good debate if nothing else and I didn't quite realise that I would come back to it a couple of hours after posting to this!!
To tackle a couple of points - I fully agree with JG that this is the clubs issue. It is they who have decided to ban RL, not Pearson. They could choose to demand Peaeson speaks to them, they could end this.
The fact that they are not speaks volumes to me. JG - if you believe so strongly in our owners, why are they letting this happen if they don't agree with it? Is suggest they clearly do.
Te other question if raise is this. If RL genuinely felt hard done by on this, why don't they report the facts to us. Let us decide? The fact that they have also reported nothing on the matter speaks volumes to me.
We don't know the full facts here, but if my club (not Pearson) have decided that RL have overstepped the mark so much that we would like to withold interviews then I support my club and owners.
Come on RL - why don't you report this to us, then we can all decide who is North Korea and who is leader of the Free World (please don't et me on to how much I disagree with both of those situations!)...
comment by Nevsaysagoal2city (U5194)
posted 4 minutes ago
Dung its not a divine right its a contractual obligation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prove it.
BS this is your problem you lke to scan the internet for facts i get them in first person.Its a fact sorry you don't like but that's not my problem.
Nice sucking up to Foxy by the way.
Mersey anyone is free to ring the moanin and ask them that question ?
They'd never put someone on if they did though, Nev. And even if you slipped it through, they'd dodge it - particularly if they're considering court proceedings.
...And thus squashing free speech in the process of course...
The BBC states that it is fully committed to both the spirit and letter of the Freedom Of Information Act
comment by Nevsaysagoal2city (U5194)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Nevsaysagoal2city (U5194)
posted 4 minutes ago
Dung its not a divine right its a contractual obligation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prove it.
BS this is your problem you lke to scan the internet for facts i get them in first person.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First person now? That's an improvement on your last reference to the fact we have a contract in place with Radio Leicester which you deduced from seeing their logo is on the back of the programme notes.
"The BBC states that it is fully committed to both the spirit and letter of the Freedom Of Information Act"
--------
As it absolutely should be. I'm just not sure that this contract falls under that act.
And as I say, I don't think it's relevant to the argument here. If anyone's breaking this contract then it's the club. In fact, I'd rather that this whole contract situation wasn't explored by Radio Leicester or taken any further - precisely because it could sour relations between them and the club (regardless of Pearson's status) and that could affect the future building of bridges. For instance, if the club are pushed into a corner with it, will they respond by doing the least possible and then not renewing the contract in the future? I want to see diplomacy from both sides here, but in the end the club could just decide that Radio Leicester bring greater negatives than positives. There are other news outlets after all.
comment by Nevsaysagoal2city (U5194)
posted 4 minutes ago
Dung its not a divine right its a contractual obligation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prove it.
Your such a pedant . I was using that to show you that if you looked yourself you could see they where a partner.
I did not think for one minute someone would need me to reveal that i had been told about the breach of contract in person,to believe that there was one. But you again prove the point. that people believe what they want to believe even when presented time and again with the facts.
Dung does your last statement show that the BBC are being bullied not to do anything for fear of losing there broadcasting contract to a coffee shop in Coalville.
I think it is being dealt with very calmly by BBC management in fact i don't think we will here from NP until either he or Stringy is fired.
Nev
Answer me one thing please.
Just out of curiosity, do you read/preview your posts prior to submitting them?
Do you and JG think that if you showed a little more humility and understanding of alternative opinions then there may be more support etc for your opinions ( even if miles apart from the majority of posters on here )?
Also referring to someone as a pedant I would take as a compliment. If I was stating facts in a discussion with another poster ( i.e. Your good self ) I would take numerous steps to ensure I had a watertight factual statement to make.
But it does seem that yourself and JG resort to this type of behaviour each time someone has the disgusting thought of disagreeing with you.
You have one opinion, I have another. It doesn't mean either of us is wrong or right, but you do seem obsessed with trying to prove that you are right.
Humility is a wonderful trait.
Sign in if you want to comment
You don't get it or do you ?
Page 3 of 6
6
posted on 19/1/15
Foxello - I remember last time this happened, Pearson spoke to John Sinclair instead. But Sinclair's not there any more and Jason Bourne insists on acting like a Stringer groupie and banterista so Pearson probably thinks like I do and puts them in the same bracket. Besides which, Radio Leicester are taking a different approach to last time and backing their man. They didn't do it enough last time and they're doing it too much this time. There has to be a happy medium somewhere.
Nev - Pearson's current legacy is two promotions, one from League 1 and the other from the Championship. Whether it will eventually be soured somewhat remains unclear, but it's surely positive, regardless of the occasional negative like the "f off and die" incident (for which he's had a lot of support both inside and outside our fanbase).
BlackStarr - I don't much like to get involved with forum politics, but please don't resort to complaining to admin or filtering. It does nobody any good in what's just a lively debate between two separate viewpoints.
posted on 19/1/15
Completely wrong but really shows what a fantastic contributor you are to these boards...... I rest my case my lud
posted on 19/1/15
comment by Nevsaysagoal2city (U5194)
posted 8 minutes ago
Foxy your are going to get nailed but i agree word for word. Stringy has cocked up but NP is using to his advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No he isn't because he posts his thoughts in a reasoned and rational way without making up 'facts'.
Owed Nev, on a hiding to nothing once again
posted on 19/1/15
"Now its come out i can mention it there where reports from within the club that NP was on his way and thats why RL went in hard."
--------
Don't you see that this illustrates the problem? Why should Radio Leicester be "going in hard" in such a situation? Reports or otherwise, their job is to report, not to dive onto some sort of scandal like a pack of wolves finding a wounded moose. That's really bad behaviour and it's no wonder that the club have reacted the way they have to it - to the point where they may even be happy to take the consequences of breaking a contractual obligation!
posted on 19/1/15
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 59 seconds ago
Foxello - I remember last time this happened, Pearson spoke to John Sinclair instead. But Sinclair's not there any more and Jason Bourne insists on acting like a Stringer groupie and banterista so Pearson probably thinks like I do and puts them in the same bracket. Besides which, Radio Leicester are taking a different approach to last time and backing their man. They didn't do it enough last time and they're doing it too much this time. There has to be a happy medium somewhere.
Nev - Pearson's current legacy is two promotions, one from League 1 and the other from the Championship. Whether it will eventually be soured somewhat remains unclear, but it's surely positive, regardless of the occasional negative like the "f off and die" incident (for which he's had a lot of support both inside and outside our fanbase).
BlackStarr - I don't much like to get involved with forum politics, but please don't resort to complaining to admin or filtering. It does nobody any good in what's just a lively debate between two separate viewpoints.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dunge, I'm making no threats to go to admin, merely using lcfc69 as an example of the depths Nev is plunging to. The filtering comment was to show what a huge baby the guy is. I had to request admin to unfilter him because of his ludicrous reaction. I've no desire to put everyone through that again
posted on 19/1/15
comment by Nevsaysagoal2city (U5194)
posted 4 minutes ago
Dung its not a divine right its a contractual obligation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prove it.
posted on 19/1/15
"No he isn't because he posts his thoughts in a reasoned and rational way without making up 'facts'. "
That's just about the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me on here - I'm sure there are others who think you're off your rocker with that comment
posted on 19/1/15
Your welcome Foxello. While I don't always agree with your view, the way you put it across is excellent in my view
posted on 19/1/15
comment by Nevsaysagoal2city (U5194)
posted 9 minutes ago
Completely wrong but really shows what a fantastic contributor you are to these boards...... I rest my case my lud
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If only......
posted on 19/1/15
I'm interested to know if anyone with any sufficient level of legal experience would know if we, as the general public, could request information from the BBC regarding their contract with LCFC under the Freedom of Information Act? Or would this lie outside of the parameters of FOIA?
posted on 19/1/15
"comment by Foxello (U6985)
posted 11 minutes ago
"No he isn't because he posts his thoughts in a reasoned and rational way without making up 'facts'. "
That's just about the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me on here - I'm sure there are others who think you're off your rocker with that comment "
--------
BlackStarr, you're off your rocker.
I wouldn't know the details of contractual requesting by the way Foxello, but it's an interesting question. Part of me says no because it's not personal data, but also part of me says maybe you can because it's supposedly a public organisation.
But either way, I don't believe that it's relevant. It's not Pearson himself who's breaking such a contract, it's the club's decision. In fact, if there is a contract then it shows how much the club is choosing to back him over this.
posted on 19/1/15
Normally, Foxello, this would apply to 'Public Authorities' of which the BBC isn't. There are also a number of 'exemptions'.
Don't quote me but I believe this will be a difficult one.
posted on 19/1/15
I'm broadly with the majority view here (ie not with Nev, JG and Foxello - and that doesn't mean I deny them the right to their view). I do however wish that Stringer would apologise/whatever and get the interviews back on RL so we did not have to listen to fill-ins from the Palace match etc. I actually like Stringer, it's good to have an LCFC fan behind the mike, but he needs to be more professional about it.
The Henry Winter interview was a breath of fresh air with some really interesting insights into Pearson and just shows what can be teased out of him if you approach an interview in the right way. For anybody who missed it - here it is: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/leicester-city/10610721/Leicester-City-manager-Nigel-Pearson-happy-to-keep-away-from-the-pack-at-top-of-the-Championship.html
Foxello - as you have raised the possibility of relegation, my view is that I'd like to see someone in charge who would make the team competitive in the Championship, also preferably have some experience of operating in the EPL so that he would have a chance of keeping us up there. Let's see now, who's the best fit for those requirements I can think of? One Nigel Pearson. OK he'll do, also he knows the club and players inside out.
posted on 19/1/15
It's strange how many people are saying that they are bored/uninterested by this debate yet it's already generated 63 comments. That would imply the contrary. I won't comment because I genuinely am (bored/uninterested).
Nice to see Foxello back. JG and Foxello active on these boards again. It must be safe to come out. The writing really is on the wall.
I'm now just awaiting an appearance from the Grim Reaper himself.
posted on 19/1/15
Don't worry Joby, it's only a flying visit I genuinely don't have enough time to dedicate to these boards any more.
Nuneaton
You make a fair comment, however I think Pearson has run his course here. It's starting to go stale. Time for fresh blood and new ideas next season.
posted on 19/1/15
Joby I'm bored with Nevs continual raising of the RL issue on every article but it doesn't mean I don't get annoyed with his continual verbal garbage being presented as absolute fact.
It's like a chef telling you he's prepared an authentic Italian meal with red wine for you to enjoy and then watching him defrost a pack of Birds eye potato waffles which he serves up with a glass of vimto.
posted on 19/1/15
This is a good debate if nothing else and I didn't quite realise that I would come back to it a couple of hours after posting to this!!
To tackle a couple of points - I fully agree with JG that this is the clubs issue. It is they who have decided to ban RL, not Pearson. They could choose to demand Peaeson speaks to them, they could end this.
The fact that they are not speaks volumes to me. JG - if you believe so strongly in our owners, why are they letting this happen if they don't agree with it? Is suggest they clearly do.
Te other question if raise is this. If RL genuinely felt hard done by on this, why don't they report the facts to us. Let us decide? The fact that they have also reported nothing on the matter speaks volumes to me.
We don't know the full facts here, but if my club (not Pearson) have decided that RL have overstepped the mark so much that we would like to withold interviews then I support my club and owners.
Come on RL - why don't you report this to us, then we can all decide who is North Korea and who is leader of the Free World (please don't et me on to how much I disagree with both of those situations!)...
posted on 19/1/15
comment by Nevsaysagoal2city (U5194)
posted 4 minutes ago
Dung its not a divine right its a contractual obligation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prove it.
BS this is your problem you lke to scan the internet for facts i get them in first person.Its a fact sorry you don't like but that's not my problem.
Nice sucking up to Foxy by the way.
Mersey anyone is free to ring the moanin and ask them that question ?
posted on 19/1/15
They'd never put someone on if they did though, Nev. And even if you slipped it through, they'd dodge it - particularly if they're considering court proceedings.
...And thus squashing free speech in the process of course...
posted on 19/1/15
The BBC states that it is fully committed to both the spirit and letter of the Freedom Of Information Act
posted on 19/1/15
comment by Nevsaysagoal2city (U5194)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Nevsaysagoal2city (U5194)
posted 4 minutes ago
Dung its not a divine right its a contractual obligation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prove it.
BS this is your problem you lke to scan the internet for facts i get them in first person.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First person now? That's an improvement on your last reference to the fact we have a contract in place with Radio Leicester which you deduced from seeing their logo is on the back of the programme notes.
posted on 19/1/15
"The BBC states that it is fully committed to both the spirit and letter of the Freedom Of Information Act"
--------
As it absolutely should be. I'm just not sure that this contract falls under that act.
And as I say, I don't think it's relevant to the argument here. If anyone's breaking this contract then it's the club. In fact, I'd rather that this whole contract situation wasn't explored by Radio Leicester or taken any further - precisely because it could sour relations between them and the club (regardless of Pearson's status) and that could affect the future building of bridges. For instance, if the club are pushed into a corner with it, will they respond by doing the least possible and then not renewing the contract in the future? I want to see diplomacy from both sides here, but in the end the club could just decide that Radio Leicester bring greater negatives than positives. There are other news outlets after all.
posted on 19/1/15
comment by Nevsaysagoal2city (U5194)
posted 4 minutes ago
Dung its not a divine right its a contractual obligation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prove it.
Your such a pedant . I was using that to show you that if you looked yourself you could see they where a partner.
I did not think for one minute someone would need me to reveal that i had been told about the breach of contract in person,to believe that there was one. But you again prove the point. that people believe what they want to believe even when presented time and again with the facts.
posted on 19/1/15
Dung does your last statement show that the BBC are being bullied not to do anything for fear of losing there broadcasting contract to a coffee shop in Coalville.
I think it is being dealt with very calmly by BBC management in fact i don't think we will here from NP until either he or Stringy is fired.
posted on 19/1/15
Nev
Answer me one thing please.
Just out of curiosity, do you read/preview your posts prior to submitting them?
Do you and JG think that if you showed a little more humility and understanding of alternative opinions then there may be more support etc for your opinions ( even if miles apart from the majority of posters on here )?
Also referring to someone as a pedant I would take as a compliment. If I was stating facts in a discussion with another poster ( i.e. Your good self ) I would take numerous steps to ensure I had a watertight factual statement to make.
But it does seem that yourself and JG resort to this type of behaviour each time someone has the disgusting thought of disagreeing with you.
You have one opinion, I have another. It doesn't mean either of us is wrong or right, but you do seem obsessed with trying to prove that you are right.
Humility is a wonderful trait.
Page 3 of 6
6