Rudkin

[Mickyblueeyes]

The thing is, we haven’t changed anything from our approach in player recruitment (which I class as number 1 priority) from when we were doing things very well. We’ve always had an emphasis on manager influence. 
 

Ranieri pushed for Mendy over Kante and we got lucky. Benalouanne, Inler were also Ranieri signings. Alongside that we had Charlie Austin who we bid for with no manager in place. 
 

Under Puel, we signed Riccy P and Diabate who were manager picks. Maddison, Maguire and Kel apparently Macia picks. Soyuncu and Benkovic, again Macia led. Tielemans maybe a mixture of the two. 
 

Rodgers, we signed Tielemans perm aside, we signed Fofana who was a scouting find and Congerton and Rodgers sort of merged the role because of relationship. We are told Vestegaard and Bertrand were manager led but surely Daka, Castagne, were scout led.

 

Last season, we know Fatawu was Glover led as Enzo told us. Mavididi, Cannon probably fell with the manager but guys like Coady, Winks were a club decision.

 

What I’m saying is we’ve always had a mixed approach. Rudkin’s problem is, when it was going wrong, as head of football operations, given where we were, the club did not act properly. We’ve seen a significant drop in revenue, expectancy and security. Let’s go back 3 years, not one of us would’ve said survival in the PL (let alone relegation) is an acceptable position. For that reason, he has been and deserves to be criticised. 

Edited 5 September by Mickyblueeyes

[Viva]

12 minutes ago, KFS said:

This is a mindset that I hate to see coming out of the mouth of the average Leicester fan. We are probably the fourth most successful English club in the modern era and the “we were on League One” crowd want to play down the window we had to take advantage. Many examples of European clubs who took their platform and became regular mainstays at the top. Remember that was Vichai’s dream? Wonder if he would share the sentiments of your last sentence.

 

Complete small time, loser mentality in this fanbase. 

You’re deluded if you think we can compete in the top 6 year after year. No club our size can in this modern era. 
We tried and did it for a few years. It only takes two bad transfer windows for it to change. We then can’t buy more players to turn it back around like clubs like Chelsea can. 

[moore_94]

11 minutes ago, Babylon said:

To balance that, I would say Mascia was a decent decision and the new guy the jury is out so far. Nobody is going to get it right all the time. 

I wouldn’t be surprised if Macia was more down to Ranieri recommending him than Rudkin identifying him as they had worked together at Valencia

 

Ranieri had also tried to get him to join him at another club before that

[Chrysalis]

3 hours ago, blue army 1988 said:

Isn't it the finances that are the problem?

Shouldn't it be her who people are hating?

From my understanding of the tidbits posted on here.

 

Rudkin has done his job poorly (yes he has had a few good windows, but for the most part he has done his job poorly).

Whelan has no control over him, due to a unusual structure at the club, only Top (and maybe his brother) has authority over Rudkin.

This freedom Rudkin has may include the amount he has been able to spend and lose on football decisions, Whelan having no veto power.

This would leave Whelan to be the chief executive of the financial side of the club.  Whilst we have under performed I think on revenue, I would say her failure plays a smaller part, especially as we now seemed to have played a smart move by moving the financial window and employing the right lawyers to beat both the EPL and EFL.  So I feel I have given Whelan a bit of a reprieve now.

 

So for me the prime culprits are Top and Rudkin.  But yeah this is under the assumption Whelan is powerless over Rudkin's area and the losses he has been allowed to spend.

Edited 5 September by Chrysalis

[Babylon]

3 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if Macia was more down to Ranieri recommending him than Rudkin identifying him as they had worked together at Valencia

 

Ranieri had also tried to get him to join him at another club before that

In which case do you absolve him of Congerton and blame Rodgers. It has to work both ways. 

[The whole world smiles]

3 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

The thing is, we haven’t changed anything from our approach in player recruitment (which I class as number 1 priority) from when we were doing things very well. We’ve always had an emphasis on manager influence. 
 

Ranieri pushed for Mendy over Kante and we got lucky. Benalouanne, Inler were also Ranieri signings. Alongside that we had Charlie Austin who we bid for with no manager in place. 
 

Under Puel, we signed Riccy P and Diabate who were manager picks. Maddison, Maguire and Kel apparently Macia picks. Soyuncu and Benkovic, again Macia led. Tielemans maybe a mixture of the two. 
 

Rodgers, we signed Tielemans perm aside, we signed Fofana who was a scouting find and Congerton and Rodgers sort of merged the role because of relationship. We are told Vestegaard and Bertrand were manager led but surely Daka, Castagne, were scout led.

 

Last season, we know Fatawu was Glover led as Enzo told us. Mavididi, Cannon probably fell with the manager but guys like Coady, Winks were a club division.

 

What I’m saying is we’ve always had a mixed approach. Rudkin’s problem is, when it was going wrong, as head of football operations, given where we were, the club did not act properly. We’ve seen a significant drop in revenue, expectancy and security. Let’s go back 3 years, not one of us would’ve said survival in the PL (let alone relegation) is an acceptable position. For that reason, he has been and deserves to be criticised. 

How do you know who was who's signing? Because congerton and Rogers just like macia and puel had worked together for years at other clubs. I imagine signing a player to be a very collaborative process with them pouring over data and potential cost not just everyone in a room fighting for their own picks.

 

And yes of course he deserves critism for the monumental drop off lots of people do but the criticism of Rudkin started long before the drop off in fact I can remember it starting after the Adrien Silva 13 seconds (or whatever it was) debacle which I think was reported afterwards to be sporting Lisbon's fault. So the fact he doesn't help himself because he looks like a little weasel and he never does interviews which leads fans to make their own stories about him but the truth is he has been a scapegoat for everything bad and a focal point for fan anger for years and years and I find it quite boring and poisonous.

[AKCJ]

10 hours ago, Wymsey said:

Bet he has a say on transfers, to a big degree.

Yes, the Director of Football has a say on transfers.

[Tommy G]

I think we are all guilty of hindsight, no club will get every transfer right and we can pick out many good signings as bad - everyone agrees post winning the league and champions league money was wasted - Rudkin and the whole management team were thrown into managing a bigger beast overnight with money flying in - pressure from all ends to recruit and spend money and continue the success, whether it be fans, media etc. PSR has come in after this to protect the big 6 and stifle clubs like ours - and we still maanged to win the FA cup.

 

I think Tete is a really good recent example - as fans we thought he was the next Mahrez, the excitement and euphoria on this forum was boiling over - and he turned out to be absolute w*ank - so us as fans get it wrong about a player too. Look how many awful signings Man Utd have made? Spent £600m under Ten Haag on absolute dross. Everton - dross. Chelsea - complete scattergun sh*t show. Bournemouth, Brighton, Arsenal to an extent have done well. Newcastle haven't been able to kick on. 

 

 

[moore_94]

1 minute ago, Babylon said:

In which case do you absolve him of Congerton and blame Rodgers. It has to work both ways. 

Definitely not - both of them deserve the blame on that one - Rodgers for choosing him and Rudkin for going ahead with someone who had clearly not done a good job before

 

Just like Ranieri would get credit for choosing Macia, and Rudkin still gets some credit for going ahead with him

 

So far I have been pleased with what Glover has done himself, so fair play to Rudkin for getting him as it doesn’t look like that one was down to the managers

[Mickyblueeyes]

36 minutes ago, The whole world smiles said:

How do you know who was who's signing? Because congerton and Rogers just like macia and puel had worked together for years at other clubs. I imagine signing a player to be a very collaborative process with them pouring over data and potential cost not just everyone in a room fighting for their own picks.

 

And yes of course he deserves critism for the monumental drop off lots of people do but the criticism of Rudkin started long before the drop off in fact I can remember it starting after the Adrien Silva 13 seconds (or whatever it was) debacle which I think was reported afterwards to be sporting Lisbon's fault. So the fact he doesn't help himself because he looks like a little weasel and he never does interviews which leads fans to make their own stories about him but the truth is he has been a scapegoat for everything bad and a focal point for fan anger for years and years and I find it quite boring and poisonous.

That’s exactly what I’ve tried to set out for you in the post. That nothing has actually changed so significantly. That the HOR seems to work quite closely with the manager which is what we have been doing for sometime so I’m not sure of your question. 
 

Your second paragraph I’m not sure what you’re saying to be honest or what you want from it. 

[MGLCFC]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

It was said way back that the scouting team pass on the general value of a player, are involved in making sure we get value etc. He's not a scout. That doesn't absolve him of everything clearly, for all we know he just ignores that information. But it's not all on him, he could be getting recommended a shit player and being giving duff info about their value. 

 

That's why I always say I'd rather focus on what is likely his decision, in putting the head of recruitment in place. Eg. Getting Congerton despite a clear history of rubbish. He allowed the manager to dictate a key position in the club. Those for me are the failings there. I can see him falling for all the bluster Rodgers used to come out with about Congerton spotting X and Y players. 

 

To balance that, I would say Mascia was a decent decision and the new guy the jury is out so far. Nobody is going to get it right all the time. 

 

We don't know for sure, but I suspect there isn't a great deal of forward planning. You'd like to think the scouting team were tasked with watching managers and signings of other clubs so see who is building a reputation for great work, so that we can keep them in mind. But it doesn't really feel like that with some of our decisions. Again, I think that forward planning is a potential failure point. 

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not here. I did say I didn't blame Rudkin for signing players recommended to him by Head of Recruitment or managers and that with all clubs signings can be hit or miss. What I'm baffled by are the contracts. Why do we offer such lucrative contracts when we are then lumbered with players who no one wants or can afford. Similarly, some responsibility has to lie with Rudkin for allowing players to run down contracts, rather than cashing in - again it probably boils down to the fact they don't want to move because of the contracts they are on.

[sylofox]

3 hours ago, Silva Fox said:

And I'd be interested to know how bad things would have to get for you to accept that we have a DoF who is out of his depth.

I don’t think Babylon has ever said he thinks Rudkin is upto doing the job.

 

But he is saying everything rudkins blamed for is not his fault.

 

If rudkins being told what he can spend on wages and transfer fee's it's not his fault we have over spent.  It's also not his fault if managers treat players like shite so they won't sign new contracts that then enables them to walk on a free.

[Babylon]

3 minutes ago, MGLCFC said:

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not here. I did say I didn't blame Rudkin for signing players recommended to him by Head of Recruitment or managers and that with all clubs signings can be hit or miss. What I'm baffled by are the contracts. Why do we offer such lucrative contracts when we are then lumbered with players who no one wants or can afford. Similarly, some responsibility has to lie with Rudkin for allowing players to run down contracts, rather than cashing in - again it probably boils down to the fact they don't want to move because of the contracts they are on.

The point I'm making is that people who worked at the club previously stated they pass on the players, what they value them at, what they believe they are worth etc. And also, that they are involved in the whole process. eg. If the price or wages are getting too high they see if there is someone else who is better value. If the head of recruitment says John, we think he's worth between £15m and £20m, and his wage demands compared to others of similar quality are £50-£60k... and we pay that, is that on him? Again, that comes from people involved in the process a few years back now. 

 

Secondly, as I've said before running down contracts isn't that black and white and I beleive there is more to it than him just being stubborn or stupid. 

 

That doesn't mean he's blameless in anything! Just that I can see reasons for things not happening, there may well be some of what you say. I just feel it's not ALL to do with that, and sometimes the situation dictates. 

 

[Babylon]

9 minutes ago, sylofox said:

I don’t think Babylon has ever said he thinks Rudkin is upto doing the job.

 

But he is saying everything rudkins blamed for is not his fault.

 

If rudkins being told what he can spend on wages and transfer fee's it's not his fault we have over spent.  It's also not his fault if managers treat players like shite so they won't sign new contracts that then enables them to walk on a free.

He wasn't replying to me, but I appreciate the defence. 

 

 

[MGLCFC]

I suppose in any organisation, you have to ask where the buck stops. Whilst he gets advice from those making suggestions on fees wages etc. at some point he has to ask if this is value for money. It's his job to do the due diligence otherwise he's just a 'signing off' man. Like I said, he gets a lot right and he should be given credit for that, but also he needs to look at the errors over the last 24 months and re evaluate his own performance, which he may well have done.

[Daggers]

13 hours ago, The whole world smiles said:

what I find baffling about the Rudkin out mob. Literally anything that goes wrong at the club is his fault entirely and anything that goes right is someone else's responsibility to take credit for.

 

If we had lost the legal appeal and got 6 points deducted with none taken of for co-operation can anyone honestly say with a straight face that it wouldn't have got pinned on Rudkin on here? So surely he then has to take a small amount of credit now?

 

Are you seriously saying that because the club managed to legally weasel its way out of a fine and points deduction, due to the ineptitude transparent in player releases and contracts, that people should somehow go, "Oh that Jon Rudkin, he may have been grossly incompetent with salaries and sales, but he's a good egg for messing up so badly at just the right time"?

 

Attempting to twist this in to some kind of pro-Rudkin coup is bizarre in the extreme.

[The whole world smiles]

6 minutes ago, Daggers said:

 

Are you seriously saying that because the club managed to legally weasel its way out of a fine and points deduction, due to the ineptitude transparent in player releases and contracts, that people should somehow go, "Oh that Jon Rudkin, he may have been grossly incompetent with salaries and sales, but he's a good egg for messing up so badly at just the right time"?

 

Attempting to twist this in to some kind of pro-Rudkin coup is bizarre in the extreme.

No.... The fact that you think someone asking for a bit of balance is somehow a "pro Rudkin coup" shows how polarised and entrenched peoples views on this have become.

 

I have said repeatedly that I'm not pro Rudkin but I'm pro having a balanced view on things and if your would have been prepared to blame him if the appeal wasn't successful which let's face you all would have. then surely you need to allow for a bit of praise if it goes right.

 

I personally couldn't give a fuch who gets praised for this as I appreciate it's a team effort. it's more a general appeal for a bit of balance things have gotten a bit poisonous.

[mozartfox]

54 minutes ago, Babylon said:

He wasn't replying to me, but I appreciate the defence. 

 

 

I have to say, I always respect you for standing up for your family member. Although I never ever agree with the defensive twaddle.

[Stadt]

14 hours ago, The whole world smiles said:

I'm not one to stick up for Rudkin, There has obviously been mistakes made over the last 5 years and I find the lack of transparency and lack of respect shown to the fans absolutely infuriating.

 

But...

 

what I find baffling about the Rudkin out mob. Literally anything that goes wrong at the club is his fault entirely and anything that goes right is someone else's responsibility to take credit for.

 

If we had lost the legal appeal and got 6 points deducted with none taken of for co-operation can anyone honestly say with a straight face that it wouldn't have got pinned on Rudkin on here? So surely he then has to take a small amount of credit now?

 

As well as the relegation and ffp breaches which were obviously bad he was also doing exactly the same job when we won the premier league, fa cup and qualified for Europe 5 times which is obviously good.

 

He can't be some all powerful exec with his grubby hands on every bad decision whilst simultaneously being in his office wanking it off while all the good decisions are being made.

 

You can't blame him for 100 percent of the bad and credit him with 0 percent of the good to do so insults people's intelligence and in my case turns me off your cause because it's so obviously not logical and biassed.

I also want Top and Whelan out so it's not all on Rudkin.

 

If we lost the legal appeal that wouldn't have been Rudkin's fault, obviously. He's a large part of why we had to do it in the first place though.

 

He was DoF when the good stuff happened, true but it was primarily under a different owner in Vichai. Rudkin can take the credit for bringing Rodgers in but we all know how that ended.

 

I don't think anybody thinks he's an all powerful executive but he is the director of football at a football club and the football part has been particularly shoddy recently.

 

Quote

No-one from the Leicester hierarchy talks publicly. The club is run by two executives who have access to the ultimate decision maker, Vichai’s son Top and the new king of owners King Power. Susan Whelan runs the commercial side of the club as chief executive but does not touch football decisions. Rudkin reports directly to Top, as he did Vichai, and is his boss’ chief advisory voice on all matters from signings to managerial sackings and appointments. 

- Sam Wallace, Telegraph

So it's a combination of Top and Rudkin making the bad decisions.

 

I think the Rudkin out, Top in brigade are in denial tbh. Top isn't cut out for the role as evidenced by his don't be mean to me statement after we got relegated. We were promised a review after we got relegated and the findings weren't announced, nor do we even know if it happened.

[PaulW]

1 hour ago, MGLCFC said:

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not here. I did say I didn't blame Rudkin for signing players recommended to him by Head of Recruitment or managers and that with all clubs signings can be hit or miss. What I'm baffled by are the contracts. Why do we offer such lucrative contracts when we are then lumbered with players who no one wants or can afford. Similarly, some responsibility has to lie with Rudkin for allowing players to run down contracts, rather than cashing in - again it probably boils down to the fact they don't want to move because of the contracts they are on.

Can't "cash in" on a player if nobody wants to buy them, and/or they have no wish to leave.

[guest123]

10 minutes ago, Stadt said:

 We were promised a review after we got relegated and the findings weren't announced, nor do we even know if it happened.

we'd have more of a clue I reckon if certain ITKers weren't hounded off here

[Stadt]

2 minutes ago, PaulW said:

Can't "cash in" on a player if nobody wants to buy them, and/or they have no wish to leave.

DoFs have agency, some clubs manage to do a much better job of shifting unwanted players than others.

 

Plenty of clubs across the continent did all sorts of PSR swindles this summer, we were involved in one and got... Michael Golding for 5m

[Mickyblueeyes]

The public appearances of senior execs is also concerning. It wasn’t always like that. When we hired Sven, Top was front and centre at the press conference. Pearson, Whelan was in awe of him (understandably) at the press conference. When we hired Ranieri, Whelan gave the famous “trust us” speech. 
 

Whelan also use to bits on EMT. 
 

No senior exec present at the Rodgers conference. 
 

No senior exec present at the Enzo conference. 
 

No senior exec present at the Cooper conference. 
 

(unless you include the communications director - which isn’t who we want to hear from).
 

It’s worrying that they’ve changed the approach in the way they have. I think a better approach to the media could (I say could) release a bit of the tension.

[AKCJ]

3 hours ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

The thing is, we haven’t changed anything from our approach in player recruitment (which I class as number 1 priority) from when we were doing things very well. We’ve always had an emphasis on manager influence. 
 

Ranieri pushed for Mendy over Kante and we got lucky. Benalouanne, Inler were also Ranieri signings. Alongside that we had Charlie Austin who we bid for with no manager in place. 
 

Under Puel, we signed Riccy P and Diabate who were manager picks. Maddison, Maguire and Kel apparently Macia picks. Soyuncu and Benkovic, again Macia led. Tielemans maybe a mixture of the two. 
 

Rodgers, we signed Tielemans perm aside, we signed Fofana who was a scouting find and Congerton and Rodgers sort of merged the role because of relationship. We are told Vestegaard and Bertrand were manager led but surely Daka, Castagne, were scout led.

 

Last season, we know Fatawu was Glover led as Enzo told us. Mavididi, Cannon probably fell with the manager but guys like Coady, Winks were a club decision.

 

What I’m saying is we’ve always had a mixed approach. Rudkin’s problem is, when it was going wrong, as head of football operations, given where we were, the club did not act properly. We’ve seen a significant drop in revenue, expectancy and security. Let’s go back 3 years, not one of us would’ve said survival in the PL (let alone relegation) is an acceptable position. For that reason, he has been and deserves to be criticised. 

We haven't changed our targets yet our budget has changed massively. As you say, we are still buying players at the same level of Mendy, Benalouane, Inler etc but we've been offering them 80/90/100k a week.

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, The whole world smiles said:

No.... The fact that you think someone asking for a bit of balance is somehow a "pro Rudkin coup" shows how polarised and entrenched peoples views on this have become.

 

I have said repeatedly that I'm not pro Rudkin but I'm pro having a balanced view on things and if your would have been prepared to blame him if the appeal wasn't successful which let's face you all would have. then surely you need to allow for a bit of praise if it goes right.

 

I personally couldn't give a fuch who gets praised for this as I appreciate it's a team effort. it's more a general appeal for a bit of balance things have gotten a bit poisonous.

Complete gash.

 

The appeal was needed because of the consequences of his actions.

 

The only people who deserve praise from the result of the appeal are the extended internal and external legal teams.

 

Rudkin's action's plunged the club into massive debt, rendered the squad devoid of talent, and gifted a ridiculous manager at the helm for this season. This hasn't changed one iota despite a legal appeal over a points deduction.

 

This has nothing to do with balance.