Who should be the next Leicester City manager?

[MrsJohnMurphy]

1 hour ago, Albert said:

Bring back King Claudio! Make him an offer he can’t refuse and give him an open cheque book to sort this mess out

I love the bloke but "this mess" all began when Claudio was in charge 

[demon_dog]

We need a manager who tells the club to ditch directors of football and half the scouts !

Let him bring his own team in.

He can then sort out hiring and firing players as he sees fit.

Then and only then do I believe we will move forward.

 

 

[Spicer]

How about Slavisa Jokanovic if Fulham don't get promoted? He got Watford promoted, and has a good chance of getting Fulham up whilst playing pretty good football.

[foxinsocks]

I dont think we'll lure rafa.

So I would go with silva.... pl experience is invaluable

Edited 29 April 2018 by foxinsocks

[fuchsntf]

Coleman..is free again..

Get some Lads in from the Valleys..

[TheUltimateWinner]

I’d rather go with an unknown than silva, he’s tremendously overhyped and I think he believes his own hype. Look how he downed tools the second Everton were linked with him. Do we really want a man like that in charge when we’ve already got players doing the same?

 

We need a maverick, someone who can come in, see who’s willing to fight for the team and who isn’t, but most of all build on that spirit of those hungry players. Rafa would be a dream but I don’t see it happening.

 

We need a Pearson mark 2. Someone to do the job he did by clearing out the rot. It’s a big ask, but the next appointment is crucial to our future. 

Edited 29 April 2018 by TheUltimateWinner

[CarbonVirtine]

1 hour ago, Bob Weasel Fox said:

I mean he sounds like a dodgy 70s porn star with that voice  

I bow to your superior wisdom of 70s porn. The 80s were more my era.

[sharpylcfc]

Rafa for me.

[Wymsey]

I know we have, arguably, more history than Newcastle but why would he move (aside from Mike Ashley not comfortable in handing out a more stronger transfer budget) from a club that's very supportive and one that's growing?

If we're not careful, some manager may be put off coming to the club with the chop-and-change style every six months or so.

Edited 29 April 2018 by Wymeswold fox

[inckley fox]

2 hours ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

If it wasn't for Cambiasso, Pearson would have got us relegated right after taking us up. He was tactically not ul to scratch.

 

Silva took over Hull in dire circumstances and had no players. He almost kept them up.

 

Watford were relegation favourites but he took them up to Top 7/8 before the Everton saga.

 

But yh, Pearson is the saviour. While we're at it, why not get O'Neill back in? He took us to top half finishes. Or Ranieri? He knows these players and surely he can just win the league for us again.

Silva did get relegated, though, and there are longevity issues with him. He lacks the experience that even Pearson has of a full successful PL season or of a team-building project. I understand the reason people want him but don't underestimate the risk factor.

 

Repeating these far-fetched stories about Cambiasso is one of the main reasons Pearson is defended at length. The evidence for it is a chance remark by Birch (who isn't on the management staff, of course) about Cambiasso explaining to players his vision for us surviving - something which fit in with NP's ethos of involving staff in the decision-making process - and a comment by Vardy that some players felt NP was undermined by EC.

 

The evidence against the claim is everything else that everyone, including Birch and Vardy, has said, and that many at the club felt, even under Ranieri, that the club had been better run under Pearson. To that you can add Pearson having improved us in every year he was in charge (beginning in the third tier and mostly without Cambiasso) and assembling that set of staff (including EC, and almost the entire set of players who went on the win the league). I'm not sure what evidence EC has given in his managerial career that he was likely to be the mastermind behind the last in many instances of NP doing a good job. It's an idea which has gained traction by large numbers of people imagining it to be true, without foundation.

 

This was a story which people who had always disliked the manager seized on, much like choosing to focus on patches of poor form rather than any of the actual season outcomes, so they didn't have to admit that he'd been a success. I believe we should look at the other options ahead of Pearson, but the idea that he be discounted because someone else was responsible for his success is so unfounded and absurd that it actually adds strength to the Pro-Pearson argument.

 

As for tactically up-to-scratch, who have been our great tacticians? Little, O'Neill and Pearson supposedly weren't tacticians, but just happened to be very successful. Taylor, Levein, Sousa, Sven and Puel were tacticians, and weren't successes. Surely tactics are simply a strategy to win games, advance a club's fortunes? The successful managers are the ones who get it right, clearly.

[dooflip]

Don’t really think it matters who is the “manager”.

 

Until we let a manager actually be a manager we’re helpless.

 

the problem isn’t so much the man in charge but the people behind the scenes imo.

 

we need to bring someone in with a long term vision, and let them do the hiring and firing. Let them pick who we buy and sell, let them have input on scouting. Also we need to let them assemble their own team to deliver their vision.

 

but none of this will ever happen until Rudkin either retires or dies.

 

so having said that the only decent viable and realistic options available given the circumstance in my opinion are:

 

Dyche

Benitez

Rogers

 

 But if there were by some miraculous peice of magic a huge overhaul and restructuring at the club we would have a lot more options.

 

as mentioned in the thread though part of the issue is also the players. Too much player power and bad attitudes who decide to stop playing when they have an issue with the regime or the manager. Those who fit in to that category are not fit to wear the shirt, regardless of their service to the club.

 

we need to rebuild from the ground up in my opinion.

 

[Guest]

Think I've managed to convince myself that, of the realistic options, Silva is the man - with the whole Everton saga hopefully having taught him a lesson. He's a class tactician and a good motivator too by all accounts, and he's yet to do a bad job anywhere as far as I can tell. Not sure there's a manager out there that could have kept Hull up, and let's not forget Rafa has a very recent Premier League relegation on his CV too. 

 

One potential problem is that he apparently wasn't massively impressed with the sporting director at Watford, so what he'd make of big Jon Rudkin I've no idea. His short average tenure doesn't really worry me that much. If he comes in for a year or two, instigates a bit of a clear out and gets us playing some nice football again, then we ought to be a more attractive proposition for whoever comes in once he leaves.

 

 

 

 

[Guest Col city fan]

3 hours ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

 

Completely different things so I guess in this situation yes - I do know better.

I remember the night that Pearson got sacked, then re-instated?

The forum was utterly buzzing and there were grown men saying they had burst into tears at the news.

Hands up, I’d said he needed to go. We looked pretty doomed. I couldn’t have been more wrong, with the benefit of hindsight.

And, hand on heart, I’d have him back now. The best part about Pearson was he didn’t take any shite from any of the players.

Nigel Pearson has LCFC in his blood. I’m afraid Silva just goes wherever his nose takes him.

 

Edited 29 April 2018 by Col city fan

[Dan LCFC]

5 hours ago, LittlethorpeFox said:

Why does he have to go now? Puel has done his main job to get us safe early, hardly Rudkin’s fault how it’s turned out the last couple of months 

Because the footballing side of the club, which he oversees, is a shambles that is being bailed out by players that were signed years ago. This is one too many now. He has to go.

[Bluetintedspecs]

5 hours ago, Col city fan said:

Yes. Let’s take someone to manage us with literally no managerial experience, especially at a time where it’s very likely that player power is a disruptive issue at the club AND at a time where we need a big clear out of the old guard. 

Think about it mi old son.....we need a wily old tough cookie at the moment to shake this fookin lot up and sort the club out. Giggs isn’t that man.

IMO.

Totally agree mate, we need a no nonsense  fvcker with balls as big as melons! ?

[Bayfox]

35 minutes ago, fuchsntf said:

Coleman..is free again..

Get some Lads in from the Valleys..

Welcome back Kingy

[seenitall]

5 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

I remember the night that Pearson got sacked, then re-instated?

The forum was utterly buzzing and there were grown men saying they had burst into tears at the news.

Hands up, I’d said he needed to go. We looked pretty doomed. I couldn’t have been more wrong, with the benefit of hindsight.

And, hand on heart, I’d have him back now. The best part about Pearson was he didn’t take any shite from any of the players.

Nigel Pearson has LCFC in his blood. I’m afraid Silva just goes wherever his nose takes him.

 

This cannot be allowed to happen

[inckley fox]

We seem to trip ourselves up when we say we're looking for certain things in a manager, because there isn't always the appetite for what we think we want.

 

A 'team-builder' is one example. We have a team-builder and had one in NP, and a lot of people lacked patience for it - understandably when it comes to Puel. But we've had many attempts at longer term building - Wallace, Hamilton, Pleat, Little, O'Neill, Taylor, Levein, Pearson and, if he stays, Puel - but only two, perhaps three of those managers achieved sustained success. And they had a bumpy ride.

 

A tactician is a common preference but often the guys who are meant to be tacticians don't get results, which is the purpose of tactics. If someone likes playing a passing game then, especially if they're foreign, we call them tacticians, regardless of how rubbish they are. Which leads us to another common request - for a purists' manager, to play the game the right way. It worked for Bloomfield, but how about Pleat, Taylor, Levein, Holloway, Sousa, Sven and Puel?

 

Finally, a big name appointment is a popular request. Wallace was a big name appointment which more or less worked out, so was Ranieri (in the short-term at least), but most of our key appointments haven't been big names. For every Pleat and Sven there's at least one Gillies, Bloomfield, Little, O'Neill and Pearson.

 

What we want and what we really want have always been a long way apart!

[David Hankey]

Not Coleman, thank you, another failure.

[inckley fox]

5 minutes ago, seenitall said:

This cannot be allowed to happen

Yes, it was dreadful last time wasn't it? From third tier to top flight survival and one year off winning the title, with the team and backroom staff already in place. Damn him. 

 

But we did have a couple of bad runs of form along the way, and he was rude, and loads of people said they didn't like him and then refused to ever back down regardless of how increasingly wrong their opinions seemed to be. So yeah, never again!

[roblcfc84]

Puel for me 

[Guest Col city fan]

1 minute ago, David Hankey said:

Not Coleman, thank you, another failure.

I can’t quite believe anyone would consider Coleman

[foxinsox]

35 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

Silva did get relegated, though, and there are longevity issues with him. He lacks the experience that even Pearson has of a full successful PL season or of a team-building project. I understand the reason people want him but don't underestimate the risk factor.

 

Repeating these far-fetched stories about Cambiasso is one of the main reasons Pearson is defended at length. The evidence for it is a chance remark by Birch (who isn't on the management staff, of course) about Cambiasso explaining to players his vision for us surviving - something which fit in with NP's ethos of involving staff in the decision-making process - and a comment by Vardy that some players felt NP was undermined by EC.

 

The evidence against the claim is everything else that everyone, including Birch and Vardy, has said, and that many at the club felt, even under Ranieri, that the club had been better run under Pearson. To that you can add Pearson having improved us in every year he was in charge (beginning in the third tier and mostly without Cambiasso) and assembling that set of staff (including EC, and almost the entire set of players who went on the win the league). I'm not sure what evidence EC has given in his managerial career that he was likely to be the mastermind behind the last in many instances of NP doing a good job. It's an idea which has gained traction by large numbers of people imagining it to be true, without foundation.

 

This was a story which people who had always disliked the manager seized on, much like choosing to focus on patches of poor form rather than any of the actual season outcomes, so they didn't have to admit that he'd been a success. I believe we should look at the other options ahead of Pearson, but the idea that he be discounted because someone else was responsible for his success is so unfounded and absurd that it actually adds strength to the Pro-Pearson argument.

 

As for tactically up-to-scratch, who have been our great tacticians? Little, O'Neill and Pearson supposedly weren't tacticians, but just happened to be very successful. Taylor, Levein, Sousa, Sven and Puel were tacticians, and weren't successes. Surely tactics are simply a strategy to win games, advance a club's fortunes? The successful managers are the ones who get it right, clearly.

The other thing was that even in the long poor run during The Great Escape Season, we were playing well and with heart. We were losing by one goal, not getting hammered. The improvement was slight, but critical, to win by one goal. 

 

Pearson will always be a legend to me, but I am not convinced 3rd time round is wise. 

[Bob Weasel Fox]

48 minutes ago, CarbonVirtine said:

I bow to your superior wisdom of 70s porn. The 80s were more my era.

Errm errm obviously just from what I’ve heard

 

honest guv  

[mozartfox]

1 hour ago, Wookie said:

Can you renounce supporting a club? I'm just not interested in who get in. Even if somehow we got Benitez in (not happening) I still wouldn't be excited. 

You could always go out on loan for  season?  I am sure Rudkin can sort you out a Club. He has had a lot of experience in doing this in the past two years.

Edited 29 April 2018 by mozartfox
whynot