For those that recall, Martin O'Neil was passionate about reserving 'the right' to speak to clubs that wanted to talk to him ... for me there is nothing wrong in that. Loyaly is, at best, an unstable concept in football where contracts are more or less meaningless and clubs can sack managers on a whim. Just because you might like to talk to prospective employers does not necessarily mean you will leave your current employment.
There's a definite truth in that statement. One of my colleagues is applying for other jobs all over the place, but he never leaves (no such luck). He certainly doesn't have the relationship with our fans like he seems to with yours. The only time I've heard his name chanted at the KC was when we played you on New Years Day.
This is ridiculous. People need to get out of this tribal way of thinking about loyalty in the game. You want to have the best manager possible at the club, and Pearson has do wonders with Hull, who looked for all the world at one point like they were going to a do a Leeds and disappear into the lower tiers for years. There's nothing wrong with him seeing if he can get a better deal for himself or his family at his old club, afterall, we're not your mortal enemies or anything. How would you like it if you went for a job interview, didn't get it, went back to your old job and was treated like dirt? Loyalty in football is a thing of the past. Get used to it and just worry about what's best for your club.
No fans at Leicester want a name. We've had that with Sven and it didn't work, so we're not desperate for it now, and most of us never were. The majority of us are very grateful for what Pearson did for us. There are a few morons of course who aren't but that's typical of every football club. There is also a minority of deluded souls who thought we were getting Martin O'Neill back, and this is a source of disappointment for some. In this way Nigel was never going to be our 'first choice' as even those speaking 100% hypothetically would have chosen O'Neill. It's not that Pearson isn't big enough, the fact he's a disappointing appointment for a few is based upon A) he's never got a side promoted to the Premiership b) He's still relatively unproven and inexperienced, C) he has made a name from bulding sides without breaking the bank, making teams difficult to beat but not scoring a lot and D) the likes of Billy Davies, Dave Jones, Mark Hughes and Roberto Di Matteo are favoured by some. As for that last point, none of them actually stand out by a long way IMO, so Pearson is perhaps as good an appointment as any of them. Personally I would have liked to have seen Billy Davies here, his sides play pacey attractive football and in other ways he's very similar to Pearson, and has a great record of getting struggling teams into the play-offs. I also quite liked the idea of Di Matteo, also mainly for his style of football and the fact he took West Brom up (as well as working wonders with MK Dons). So NP wouldn't have been my first choice but I'm not disappointed, he did a great job here before and I think he'll get us into the play-offs. Certainly the comments you quote don't suggest that we are too big for him, merely that we are a different club now and have different kinds of players. Instead of the hard-grafting team players we had before there are quite a few technically gifted players with egos. He may have to adapt both his coaching style and our style of play from when he was here before. If it were me in Hull's position, tbh I wouldn't be too forgiving of Pearson either.
