It's a quiet day and I appreciate we havent played a competitive game under the new management yet but in light of what I see as VERY unprofessional comments from Adam this week about his existing players and some pretty stellar signings either tied up or nearly done, I just thought I'd ask the question. Lets face it, there's no way we would have paid £2.6m for a striker and be linked with one of Rangers' supposed better players if we had Adam and Nick in charge. Personally, I'm not but I said all along I thought the sacking of Nick was the right decision done wrongly. Ive made it pretty clear I was a Nigel fan and for me we undoubtedly went backwards after he left. As for Adam, I found myself cringeing when he talked about players on Eff Cee's books with a large chunk of the season remaining and as for the signings its exciting to be observing what's been going on but it's always too early to judge. If they turn out to be dogga on big contracts and we're stuck with them heading towards financial meltdown I could easily long for a bit of prudence...
Relived they've both gone, neither were upto the job. Adam Pearsons sell by date expired as soon as he brought in Iain Dowie as far as i'm concerned, the most catastrophic decision ever made at this football club. Thankfully we now have people in charge who know what they're doing.
Agree with the bit about sacking Nick being the right thing done wrongly, but you can't say we went backwards under him, he elevated us to the play-offs and although ultimately we finished just outside, he guided us to a league position higher than Nigel ever did. With regards to Pearson, it's not just him, of the two players he has publicly criticised one has been moved to a different position and the other one looks like they will be dropped for tonight's game. I don't agree with how he handled it but it's certainly common opinion within the the club.
Is that actually true? Without checking Im pretty sure Nigel had us in the play-off positions on the regular. And Im pretty sure our form under Nick was worse than our form under Nigel if you compare like for like ie Nick's 20 (or whatever) games in charge vs Nigel's last 20 or whatever,
The subject header could not have been any ****ing clearer. if you dont want to read it then that's easily achieved.
i said all along that Adam Pearson did plenty for Hull City, and arguably saved us from oblivion initially, however, I also think that he did a lot more for Adam Pearson throughout his association with Hull City. Fair play to him I suppose as he is a successful businessman who can recognise a good earner when he sees one. Nice bloke it seems with an eye for a winner (and probably a lot more losers that nobody hears about, but hey that's capitalism i suppose). The Allams did no more than get rid of an expensive on-cost and consultants can be a very expensive way to do business for any organisation. At the time I wondered why Adam Pearson never joined the board or was employed. Simple - his earning potential as a consultant were much higher than a direct commitment. As for Nick, Id say he has been very badly led by none other than Adam Pearson, or perhaps his agent. Whatever, we have new owners and a manager with their own ways of doing business, so we move on. There will be other owners and managers after all!
In a nutshell, with a large chunk of the season left including the most important part he singled out their half backs as being (and I'm paraphrasing here he might not have used this term) basically ****. Now Im no rugby fan with VERY little understanding of the game but in more general terms it seems to me that if he thinks this, when there is little other option available with I understand it the transfer deadline having passed, it might have been a good idea to say this after the season has ended.
I remember Adam Pearson having a similar rant about new signings not performing during the Phil Parkinson era.
The way the Allams treated Nick stinks and I won't forget what they did. It doesn't give me any confidence that Allam won't wake up grumpy one morning and sack Steve Bruce for fun.
When Barmby left City, we heard about the rowing between him and the Allams. If it's true they didn't get on there was really no point him staying, because it wouldn't have done the club any favours. The relationship between the manager and chairmen has to be harmonious. Just like the bond between player & coach. Pearson did everything for City, but couldn't do much for us after promotion to the championship. It wasn't because he lacked ambition, it was because he didn't want us to live beyond our means, which was the only way we got up. His venture into rugby league is a bizarre one- i doubt he knows much about the sport.
so different to 90% of other chairmen/owners in the country then? ever heard the one about train sets?
Yeah obviously the one mistake he made impaired his ability to make any decisions in the future, cretin.
