Pearson......

Longtime;

I don't know the inside story but basically he got Pearson mad with one of his questions about Steve Howard (I think), and to the best of my knowledge, Radio Leicester suspended Strings for about 5 matches where John Sinclair was doing the commentary. When Strings returned they had a bad relationship and Shakespere went on to do most of the interviews with RL and Strings from then on in until they both went to Hull. That was my understanding of the events anyway...

Stringer is bumptious and lightweight, Pearson is grave and instinctively discreet. So it was never going to be a love match. Whether anything specific happened to sour things, I dunno.

Thanks. Stringer comes across as a partisan terraces nutcase of yesteryear. Objective reporting? Not really, so I can now see how he might have upset Pearson.

What a merry go round - bet the bookies are loving it all this money being thrown at so many names

I do really like Strings, but yes he can let his emotions get the better of him sometimes.

Stringer is great entertainment (I can get match commentaries through LCFC on the internet) but I am not left feeling that he is one of the game's great authorities. Strange that Radio Leicester banned him.

I'm not sure where this myth came from that booking odds are based purely on how much money is placed.

I have worked in a bookies and can assure you this isn't the sole factor, although admittedly I'd be gobsmacked if Pearson came back.

Who said purely?

Your comment seems to imply this, suggesting that odds are based on bets and the shortening of these don't mean 'anything'.

If I have misconstrued this, and you believe that odds are sometimes based on other factors that may have some substance, I apologise.

Following Stringer's phone call to O'Neill, I've just tweeted him and asked him to ring Pearson...and record it!

Should be good listening!!