Posting facts and asking questions isn't petty bickering. Petty bickering is avoiding the questions and trying to turn it into a personal issue.
Pearson being involved in any way with anything to do with our club would show clear intentions. Complete lack of ambition. Clear intentions to make him a couple more million, then he'd announce he's taken as far as he could and he'd **** us over again by selling to whoever made him the most money. The one thing he IS good at is PR. His own PR. Such that a minority would swallow his bullshit and hail him as some sort of saviour and good for the club. I know it's hard to imagine that such feeble minded people are out there, but sadly it's true. They're still falling for it, it seems. When it all went wrong, they'd feel sorry for him and make out it wasn't his fault. Nothing is ever his fault. He's always the victim of circumstances. The only thing Pearson is good for is himself. It would be a disaster, at a club who's seen more than its fair share of disasters, of huge proportions and would set us back 20 years.
Consortiums tend to have fall-outs often resulting in stalemate. Individual owners provide clear leadership even if sometimes they're as mad as a box of frogs.
I agree with this line – though I’m always interested to read valid revision of his time/intentions at the club provided it is well thought and appropriately fair and balanced. As an isolated point, the lack of investment in the youth set up is a good discussion point – though I’m not certain it is a stick to beat Pearson with. From those that remember the utterly dark days before his arrival, there isn’t anyone (I knew of anyway) who’d have wanted to prioritise significant budget on this over investing in the first team squad to steady us in the bottom tier then climb. I also recall much money being ‘wasted’ by Little and then Molby before we reinvested again under Taylor and finally went up. After then, we only had two seasons in the second tier under his stewardship and again this involved spending lots of money firefighting (300k on players like Bridges or 500k on Marney were serious investment back then for us). So in my opinion, with the knowledge I have at this time, is that Pearson probably would have looked to address the youth issue when resources and time allowed it.
IF Adam was to come in, it would be interesting to see how his relationship with SB develops. The Allams have supported SB financially and backed his judgement which has allowed him to pretty much bring in who he wanted (last couple of months excluded). Adam is more football savy therefore ongoing funding and squad development could significantly change.
As Pearson isn't anything to do with any consortium, this is a rather pointless debate. There probably isn't a consortium anyway.
It's obvious that, is it? It's obvious you can't see through the smarm and self interest. AP has one interest, himself. He's not even been able to help take TWS to the next level, even with the dodgy owner they have. FC are achieving what exactly? I bet he's done ok out of it though. I have no problem with a businessman being a businessman and trying to make himself money btw. It's what they do. It's when it's dressed up to be something it isn't that annoys me, as in a minority doing that for Pearson. It is amusing that PMT, that staunch Anti Allam ****, who is a director of a trust with stated aims to work with the owners for the good of the club, who is boycotting the club in protest at giving money to the Evil Mr Allam, whilst still being a director of aforementioned Trust who just paid those same Evil Allams to sponsor a player (never did see a response to how that made him feel), feels duty bound to defend a small time, self interest looking after business man who would take us backwards. I agree with your later post btw, he almost certainly isn't in a consortium (unless he's lying about that obvz) and I doubt very much whether there any consortium at all.
Peopke have short memories. Without Adam Pearson we.d have never left Boothferry park. Languished in the bottom divisions Never had the great days at Wembley. Winning at Arsenal 2v1 Beating Liverpool twice Great promotion seasons and a nice stadium. But lets forget that shall we
You could at BP and most PL grounds for that matter Dragging football towards the middle classes is partly to blame
Which is the fault of the people in it, not the KC. You should have heard the noise at Brighton yesterday for a rugby union game where the vast majority were neutrals. Far better than most football matches there. All it needs is people to not sit like they are at the theatre, demanding to be entertained before they deign to offer vocal encouragement.
To be honest it was quiet at BP long before football started beingndraggedvtowards the middle classes. A seething cauldron it wasn't.
