Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.7K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 41 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 478 Fun & Games
- 139 BA Predictor Threads
- 43 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 324 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 133 Current West Ham
- 209 Men's First Team
- 4 Women's Team
- 13 PL2 & Academy
- 33 Management & Board
- 16 Stadium & Training Ground
- 30 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 431 Match Threads
- 99 MOTM
- 11 West Ham Nostalgia
- 36 Former Players and Staff
- 5 Past Games & Glories
- 40 Transfers
- 48 Transfer Speculation
- 88 Completed Transfers
- 56 Internationals
- 49 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 125 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 273 Other Teams & Matches
- 27 Other Players & Staff
Comments
According to Declan at his first team meeting he told them “you don’t run enough and you don’t work hard enough. If you don’t run you don’t play”.
It's hardly likely he's going to drag his family back across the pond unless its for something major although he did tweet about liking the idea of being Joe Cole's assistant manager.
Surely if the manager they hired wants Pearce as part of his team, then the board should be professional and back Moyes' wishes.
Hypothetically (which this is) I don't think any board has to give carte blanche to any manager to bring in whoever they like. The board is the employer, and will have certain standards about who they employ.
Hypothetically, if we reverse it, do you think a board can never sack one of the coaching team brought in by a manger (say, for gross misconduct). Is that failing to 'be professional and back the manager's wishes'?
I get that the board can emply who they like. Their club, their money.
But from what I understand, Pearce's comments were made after he'd left the club, therefore misconduct doesn't come into it. It seems that they've blocked his return simply because he doesn't hold a favourable opinion of them.
The issue for me is that if Moyes believes Pearce's involvement is beneficial to the success of the club, then the board should back his decisions. I could understand their reluctance if Pearce was a proven racist, or homophobe etc, because that affects the reputation of the club, but in this instance it seems to be personal rather than professional reasons that they don't want him back.
I just know who I'm more inclined to believe.
So you are more looking at where the line is drawn, ie not the principle but the specifics of a case?
In which case, it might be argued that criticising your previous employer publicly (even after you are no longer employed by them) is unprofessional... and so the employer's decision not to re-employ is not personal but professional?
Furthermore, in this example that you are outlining ...if what we have been told is a fair representation of the truth and not just one person's spin on it ... it's less the employee's opinion that's the issue (after all, how would anyone know what he thinks if he kept schtum) but his going public with it. It seem reasonable to assume that Moyes himself thinks their previous decision not to extend his contract was a wrong one, and the board thus know he has a negative opinion of what they did. But they re-employed him.
Just this sec I remembered he was called out for racially abusing Paul Ince...
Unlike John Terry, he admitted it and apologized
(I'm not saying he was refused the return for being a racist, just that I recalled it)
I do, however, believe that that Sullivan is petty enough to block Pearce's return because he's voiced a negative opinion of him.
Different circumstances, but if someone left my team and ran their mouth saying that I was a bad boss or that the team was poor, or whatever, I might have some reluctance to work with them again.
I agree that generally the board should appoint the coaching staff that the manager wants to bring in, but I think this is probably an ok reason not to, IMO. I'd be more concerned if they were not appointing him because of a perceived lack of quality, because that would be them suggesting they don't trust the managers judgement of ability to the job.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51005585
This probably didn't sit too well with Sullivan
So he has no idea, he's speculating.
He could, of course , be right. But it could be that he is happy to blame someone else's (unjust) decision that he didn't get the job.
I suppose it's an alternative to thinking you aren't good enough. Or that there are better options available. Or Moyes prefers someone else.
If under Moyes some money was put into the coffers from player sales, we can all see that in subsequent transfer windows the club bought expensive players, and broke the transfer record (?twice). Haller, Anderson, Diop ... the money's probably not 'around the club' any more.
Well, I can comment, but it may not be well-informed...
All I can say is ,I've never seen any comments from players suggesting they think Pearce is a top coach, and his record as a manager is hardly inspiring.
I certainly don't feel we will be missing out if he doesn't rejoin.