To be fair Motu has been to uni too. Peacock does have vast experience of being around winning clubs for so many years, as a player, whether he's picked anything up regarding 'managing' remains to be seen.

I'd like him to make some decent decisions, that'd be a start.

Anyone else who's made the fk ups he has would be out of a job.

Go on, be controversial. NAME THEM



Or better still start a poll.

I see that the "Positive Thread" has been anonymously locked after just 6 hours of bombardment by the usual suspects, plus a new one who saw fit to air his grievances.

I guess that's par for the course at the moment.

afraid so mate

Nah. Not worth the hassle.

Seriously though, something that really annoys me is when posters attack or attempt to belittle another poster, rather than the point(s) being made. It rather suggests that they can't really refute them, so instead attempt to demonise or ridicule in order to deflect and hide from what they don't want to hear/read. Posters on both sides of the fence are guilty of this IMO, and that's the kind of mean-spirited almost bullying with which I'd rather not be associated as accepting or approving. Sometimes people deserve a bit of mockery, but sometimes it goes a bit far for my tastes, especially when there's no attempt to engage in debate as it then just smacks of sulking and lashing out.

AP aint going anywhere, he's just got a brand new Range Rover

I understand your usual fishing for a bite but in reality if you look at that list, which of those would be classed as bad signings? Most we got good years out of and in some instances their better years. there are a number who appeared in the dream team and also probably about £500k worth of profit in there. Of the ones that have been 'bad' signings none of them have gone on to be better players after they left us. I don't really look at it and say 'I wish we'd kept him' could you say the same about some of yours.

In answer to the subject question, no I don't think Pearson should go. Has he made mistakes since he bought the club? Yes I think so. But I have no doubt that he is committed to the club and wants us to succeed.

I see from some of the talk about last nights FC Voices that we may be appointing a CEO soon. I'd hope that such an appointment would be a rugby man through and through and not someone from another sport.

Surely someone with a wealth of experience in such a role and a proven track record of success at a high level is more important than a 'rugby man', why on earth is that so vitally important?
Though some RL connections [imight[/i help they need leadership skills, be able to motivate staff, be excellent at financial management, have commercial negotiation savvy and the ability to formulate & implement strategies (amongst many other attributes) that move us forward/make us better/more efficient. These are all basic building blocks to success in the role of CEO.
Frankly and this is no side swipe at RL and the people whom are involved it's an almost stagnant sport (by comparison to others) with a narrow band of hard core supporters. What we don't need is another 'rugby man' who is indoctrinated in the way things are in RL, I want someone with expertise and with the capabilities to get us places...you do not 'need' to know rugby as a CEO to do that.

In that case then do we need a CEO as doesn't AP have those traits himself? Someone with good rugby knowledge would compliment AP's existing skill set IMO.

In short, no, the evidence is there to back that up I'm afraid.
I've said everything I wanted to say about Pearson, got shouted down or rather slagged off for having an opinion, yet his inconsistancy & erratic tendancies and the way he goes about things are there to see, they are not indicitive of what i would describe as a CEO of a multi million pound business.

It's his club, he can and does do whatever he likes, I don't care whom he brings in so long as it improves us, if that's a 'rugby man' that's fine but it need not be a pre-requisite.

I think Pearson, in both spells at City proved himself a rather accomplished CEO.

I won't shout you down or anything. We're all entitled to an opinion and the world would be boring if we all agreed.

As do I. I don't think he's done quite as good a job with us (not for lack of effort) which I think is more down to him being an outsider coming into a sport he didn't have much knowledge of and having to find his feet. Which is one reason why if we do appoint a CEO that it would be a good thing if such a person was someone that knows the game and not someone that's got to come in and get to grips with how it all works.

Wow, how times change.

And your point is??

We don't need a CEO. Pearson is more hands and more knowledgeable than he used to be. Motu Tony is a considerable upgrade on McRae. I would rather Pearson spent his money on more coaching staff - 3 of them is just not enough. If Radford is staying why not appoint an attacking assistant coach?

He just realised that you put the clock forward one hour.

The last time Pearson "sold up", did he not benefit to the tune of £6m, from the mortgage of a council assett?

Immoral.

No he got £10million commision for selling the club on behalf or Peter Wilkinson

hth

In his last spell he appointed an experienced player into the coaching role regardless of his experience of coaching. This failed to deliver the required results. In the end it took getting rid of Pearson to remove this coach, an experienced coach was appointed and the club progressed.

Not sure Barmby was failing tbh. Good old Nick was the first to question Allam and was the first victim of his childish behaviour.

Nice try to align it with our position though.

He wasn't winning either, he may have been the sacrificial lamb in the spat between AP and AA. What I'm saying is City became better playing wise since he's left.

Not disputing that because I agree that they are a lot better now. But I would just like to point out that they were better under Barmby than his predecessor Nigel Pearson so in that instance AP made the right call.