Rudkin

[Ric Flair]

3 hours ago, Albert said:

When you look at the actual Expenditure/Income/Net figures over that period which teams did better than us?

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here? I didn't want to have to repeat myself but I shall in an attempt to explain my posts that you've joined half way through on.

 

We struggle to move players on. I presume we can agree on that? In the last few years Rodgers repeatedly said players would need to leave and they didn't. Why was that? If we read in to it, although we aren't Top and Jon Rudkin we've struggled to get teams to match our valuations we place on these fringe players or players running their contracts down. We didn't seem willing to compromise and take a hit in order to move these players on.

 

One might add, given the net expenditure positives you've flagged, we ought to have had more flexibility to compromise in order to move these players on, free up wages and re-invest. We saw last season the consequence of having players who no longer wanted to be here, we nose dived off a cliff.

 

So in the last 4 years, despite selling a high value asset we ideally wanted to keep for vast money in Maguire, Chilwell and Fofana, we failed to move on enough other players. I can only presume this was part of the reason we had no funds last summer, we'd opted not to at least cash in on a high value asset in the summer of 2021 nor sell any fringe players, that we'd been incapable of doing so and therefore, despite the positive net expenditure you've suggested, we had snookered ourselves at being unable to do the rebuild Rodgers said we needed.

 

All last summer we were told we had to sell, sell, sell. We accepted a bid for one player in Jannick Vestergaard who rejected it. We rejected bids for Castagne, Soumare, Praet and Iheanacho. We knew Fofana was likely going and that we were going to get well above £50m (we got £70m in the end) and the bottom line on what the ramifications were for him going and accepting the bids we'd had on the table for other players who we wanted to move on or might be open to moving on. We failed to do to that.

 

I simply don't buy that there were no interest in Tielemans, Soyuncu and Perez last summer. Or assessing the diminishing returns on Mendy and Amartey and freeing up their wages to help bring a few in.

 

I'll leave it there, but nothing changes the fact 8 players left on frees this summer, we've 10 more next summer and at this stage it looks like most of them will remain with us and that we have barely sold any players we want to move on in the last 4+ years, whilst others do see the importance of moving such players on and compromise as a result.

 

 

 

 

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, Blue Fox 72 said:

When exactly did you become an apologist for the club and its alarming recent failings Babylon?

 

You’re perhaps need to read a bit closer. Because I’m not standing here with a pitchfork screaming for one persons head like he’s a monster doesn’t mean I’m happy.

 

They ****ed up, it’s clear we ****ed up. But with so little knowledge of any of the details,  I’m not jumping on your little bandwagon of slagging off everything and anything. As a collective they need to sort their shit out, because nobody at the top level of the club comes out well.

 

 

Edited 17 August 2023 by Babylon

[1972 Fox]

9 minutes ago, Babylon said:

You’re perhaps need to read a bit closer. Because I’m not standing here with a pitchfork screaming for one persons head like he’s a monster doesn’t mean I’m happy.

 

They ****ed up, it’s clear we ****ed up. But with so little knowledge of any of the details,  I’m not jumping on your little bandwagon of slagging off everything and anything. As a collective they need to sort their shit out, because nobody at the top level of the club comes out well.

 

 

Well at least you are acknowledging that there have been significant failings at the club, but what slagging off bandwagon have I jumped on exactly? 

[Babylon]

28 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here? I didn't want to have to repeat myself but I shall in an attempt to explain my posts that you've joined half way through on.

 

We struggle to move players on. I presume we can agree on that? In the last few years Rodgers repeatedly said players would need to leave and they didn't. Why was that? If we read in to it, although we aren't Top and Jon Rudkin we've struggled to get teams to match our valuations we place on these fringe players or players running their contracts down. We didn't seem willing to compromise and take a hit in order to move these players on.

 

One might add, given the net expenditure positives you've flagged, we ought to have had more flexibility to compromise in order to move these players on, free up wages and re-invest. We saw last season the consequence of having players who no longer wanted to be here, we nose dived off a cliff.

 

So in the last 4 years, despite selling a high value asset we ideally wanted to keep for vast money in Maguire, Chilwell and Fofana, we failed to move on enough other players. I can only presume this was part of the reason we had no funds last summer, we'd opted not to at least cash in on a high value asset in the summer of 2021 nor sell any fringe players, that we'd been incapable of doing so and therefore, despite the positive net expenditure you've suggested, we had snookered ourselves at being unable to do the rebuild Rodgers said we needed.

 

All last summer we were told we had to sell, sell, sell. We accepted a bid for one player in Jannick Vestergaard who rejected it. We rejected bids for Castagne, Soumare, Praet and Iheanacho. We knew Fofana was likely going and that we were going to get well above £50m (we got £70m in the end) and the bottom line on what the ramifications were for him going and accepting the bids we'd had on the table for other players who we wanted to move on or might be open to moving on. We failed to do to that.

 

I simply don't buy that there were no interest in Tielemans, Soyuncu and Perez last summer. Or assessing the diminishing returns on Mendy and Amartey and freeing up their wages to help bring a few in.

 

I'll leave it there, but nothing changes the fact 8 players left on frees this summer, we've 10 more next summer and at this stage it looks like most of them will remain with us and that we have barely sold any players we want to move on in the last 4+ years, whilst others do see the importance of moving such players on and compromise as a result.

 

 

 

 

You quoted Tanner yesterday, he also said we accepted a bid for Soumare as well as not meeting the valuation with Monaco, and that Soumare turned down the move. 
 

So, if you want to believe the press on certain things, let’s believe that also. So that’s Soumare and Vestergaard turning down moves. 
 

And can you also accept the point I keep making about if we don’t have money to replace players, it can make more sense to keep them. If the alternative is us bringing in someone below their quality.

[Claridge]

Does anyone really know what Rudkin's remit is? People seem to imagine what his role is and comment on it constantly, blaming him for everything. Not sure why Top would keep him if he is so useless and if he is useless doesn't that make Top just as bad for keeping him?

 

 

[Babylon]

44 minutes ago, Claridge said:

Does anyone really know what Rudkin's remit is? People seem to imagine what his role is and comment on it constantly, blaming him for everything. Not sure why Top would keep him if he is so useless and if he is useless doesn't that make Top just as bad for keeping him?

 

 

Even if people knew, much can be dictated by other internal and external factors. So, unless someone comes out with answers it’s all guess work. 
 

What we know is collectively they need to admit mistakes were made and rectify them. 

[Matt]

Has anyone ever heard Rudkin speak?

 

A recorded Q&A (even if the questions were carefully selected by himself/the club) on on outlet such as RL would atleast give him some form of a platform to explain and excuse the failings.

 

I’m pretty certain OPA/RL have said they’ve invited the club to speak but the fact they either refused or ignored the invite speaks volumes.

 

Of course it’s the clubs right to refuse, not many clubs do very often - neither would/should it be needed very often, but equally it’s not something unknown for clubs every once in a while to do such an exercise, especially when the same criticisms, the same mistakes crop up and seemingly from the outside nothing is learnt.

 

Edited 17 August 2023 by Matt

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

7 minutes ago, Matt said:

Has anyone ever heard Rudkin speak?

 

Explain himself. A recorded Q&A (even if the questions were carefully selected by himself/the club) on on outlet such as RL would atleast give him some form of a platform to explain and excuse the failings.

 

I’m pretty certain OPA/RL have said they’ve invited the club to speak but the fact they either refused or ignored the invite speaks volumes.

 

Of course it’s the clubs right to refuse, not many clubs do very often - neither would/should it be needed very often, but equally it’s not something unknown for clubs every once in a while to do such an exercise, especially when the same criticisms, the same mistakes crop up and seemingly nothing is learnt.

He should definitely do that. He is accountable, partly to us (mostly to Top). I remember seeing Dan Ashworth at Newcastle being interviewed before their first game of the season last year to talk thought their approach and what they were building. I’m not saying Sky would want Rudkin, but at the very least he needs to surely create some sort of dialogue with supporters. Otherwise a vacuum gets created and we are left to speculate. 

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

You quoted Tanner yesterday, he also said we accepted a bid for Soumare as well as not meeting the valuation with Monaco, and that Soumare turned down the move. 
 

So, if you want to believe the press on certain things, let’s believe that also. So that’s Soumare and Vestergaard turning down moves. 
 

And can you also accept the point I keep making about if we don’t have money to replace players, it can make more sense to keep them. If the alternative is us bringing in someone below their quality.

Apologies, I've not ever seen it reported that we accepted a bid for Soumare. Have you the link?

 

I agree on your last point if that was explicitly the issue, but I argue that that's not really been the case. Just cut our cloth accordingly if we had to compromise on some sales on what outlay there is for purchasing. For a start, recruit players on less wages than those moving on. We can read between the lines that we were very generous payers as we attempted to keep apace with the big 6, that trickled down to squad players too who seemed to be getting huge starting salaries.

 

Now you could argue that why would players come for less when those already at the club were on more but again, it's about being flexible in the types of players we recruit in. Younger, talented but possibly unproven players cost less in wages than perceived experience. 

 

We also seem very reluctant in picking up free transfers, yet on the flip side are in a position where many leave us when their contract expires. At a time where we were told we'd been snookered on incomings until players left, that's a possible counter move to your point on us having limited funds to bring players in?

 

 

[mozartfox]

1 hour ago, Claridge said:

Does anyone really know what Rudkin's remit is? People seem to imagine what his role is and comment on it constantly, blaming him for everything. Not sure why Top would keep him if he is so useless and if he is useless doesn't that make Top just as bad for keeping him?

 

 

Found this on the net:

 

A director of football or director of soccer, sometimes also called a sporting director or technical director, is a senior management figure at an association football (soccer) club, most commonly in Europe. Often, their key task is managing transfers of players to and from the team.

[Dames]

4 minutes ago, mozartfox said:

Found this on the net:

 

A director of football or director of soccer, sometimes also called a sporting director or technical director, is a senior management figure at an association football (soccer) club, most commonly in Europe. Often, their key task is managing transfers of players to and from the team.

But as his defenders point out we don't actually know if he's responsible for that. It seems he's not responsible for anything unless there is credit to be given.

[mozartfox]

4 minutes ago, Dames said:

But as his defenders point out we don't actually know if he's responsible for that. It seems he's not responsible for anything unless there is credit to be given.

So very very true

[Dames]

2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here? I didn't want to have to repeat myself but I shall in an attempt to explain my posts that you've joined half way through on.

 

We struggle to move players on. I presume we can agree on that? In the last few years Rodgers repeatedly said players would need to leave and they didn't. Why was that? If we read in to it, although we aren't Top and Jon Rudkin we've struggled to get teams to match our valuations we place on these fringe players or players running their contracts down. We didn't seem willing to compromise and take a hit in order to move these players on.

 

One might add, given the net expenditure positives you've flagged, we ought to have had more flexibility to compromise in order to move these players on, free up wages and re-invest. We saw last season the consequence of having players who no longer wanted to be here, we nose dived off a cliff.

 

So in the last 4 years, despite selling a high value asset we ideally wanted to keep for vast money in Maguire, Chilwell and Fofana, we failed to move on enough other players. I can only presume this was part of the reason we had no funds last summer, we'd opted not to at least cash in on a high value asset in the summer of 2021 nor sell any fringe players, that we'd been incapable of doing so and therefore, despite the positive net expenditure you've suggested, we had snookered ourselves at being unable to do the rebuild Rodgers said we needed.

 

All last summer we were told we had to sell, sell, sell. We accepted a bid for one player in Jannick Vestergaard who rejected it. We rejected bids for Castagne, Soumare, Praet and Iheanacho. We knew Fofana was likely going and that we were going to get well above £50m (we got £70m in the end) and the bottom line on what the ramifications were for him going and accepting the bids we'd had on the table for other players who we wanted to move on or might be open to moving on. We failed to do to that.

 

I simply don't buy that there were no interest in Tielemans, Soyuncu and Perez last summer. Or assessing the diminishing returns on Mendy and Amartey and freeing up their wages to help bring a few in.

 

I'll leave it there, but nothing changes the fact 8 players left on frees this summer, we've 10 more next summer and at this stage it looks like most of them will remain with us and that we have barely sold any players we want to move on in the last 4+ years, whilst others do see the importance of moving such players on and compromise as a result.

 

 

 

 

Its likely that whoever is responsible for transfers has become quite arrogant after receiving such high fees for some players and believes they can work that same magic on every transfer. There is no pragmatism in the approach, its either meet our valuation or don't bother. Which is fine for players we don't want to sell but not so fine for players we do want to sell. 

 

The club have been dining out on the Maguire transfer for too long in my opinion. 

[kingkisnorbo]

18 minutes ago, mozartfox said:

Found this on the net:

 

A director of football or director of soccer, sometimes also called a sporting director or technical director, is a senior management figure at an association football (soccer) club, most commonly in Europe. Often, their key task is managing transfers of players to and from the team.

Well we simply don't know what ours does because we haven't had a broadcasted statement on Rudkin's roles and duties by the chairman himself. Hopefully one day we might find out, it's all speculation up until now!

[Claridge]

24 minutes ago, mozartfox said:

Found this on the net:

 

A director of football or director of soccer, sometimes also called a sporting director or technical director, is a senior management figure at an association football (soccer) club, most commonly in Europe. Often, their key task is managing transfers of players to and from the team.

Its whoever is identifying the players that is the problem lately.

[mozartfox]

55 minutes ago, kingkisnorbo said:

Well we simply don't know what ours does because we haven't had a broadcasted statement on Rudkin's roles and duties by the chairman himself. Hopefully one day we might find out, it's all speculation up until now!

I think we can accurately speculate on some of his roles. If he has no input on recruitment and contract management- then who at the Club is over-seeing this?  Filbert! The Birch? 

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

Apologies, I've not ever seen it reported that we accepted a bid for Soumare. Have you the link?

 

I agree on your last point if that was explicitly the issue, but I argue that that's not really been the case. Just cut our cloth accordingly if we had to compromise on some sales on what outlay there is for purchasing. For a start, recruit players on less wages than those moving on. We can read between the lines that we were very generous payers as we attempted to keep apace with the big 6, that trickled down to squad players too who seemed to be getting huge starting salaries.

 

Now you could argue that why would players come for less when those already at the club were on more but again, it's about being flexible in the types of players we recruit in. Younger, talented but possibly unproven players cost less in wages than perceived experience. 

 

We also seem very reluctant in picking up free transfers, yet on the flip side are in a position where many leave us when their contract expires. At a time where we were told we'd been snookered on incomings until players left, that's a possible counter move to your point on us having limited funds to bring players in?

 

Here you go. "Two clubs have been in for Boubakary Soumare but Leicester failed to agree terms with Monaco and Soumare rejected a move to the second club, as Jannik Vestergaard did to Fulham in what was potentially a £10million move."

https://theathletic.com/3533987/2022/08/25/leicester-city-rodgers-transfers-wrong/

 

It's only really been in the last few years we've not been able to shift players, previously we mostly managed to get rid other than a few. We managed to shift Iborra and Musa, the latter being a bloody miracle. So something changed. 

 

What I'm trying to say is that it's highly unlikely it's JUST down to asking too much, there is going to be a dozen contributory factors that has made it harder. That's not excusing it, some of those factors are likely self made! Then you have the players themselves, the likes of Tielemans has clearly had an eye on the exit almost from when he joined, he's not got the move he thought he would due to his poor form. Accepting offers doesn't mean they move when it's appealing to get a free transfer. Soyuncu has got himself an amazing move off the back of it, if we'd accepted £5m in the summer from a dozen clubs, would they have been what he wanted if he knew others were sniffing about for when the contract ended. 

 

 

[Babylon]

5 minutes ago, mozartfox said:

I think we can accurately speculate on some of his roles. If he has no input on recruitment and contract management- then who at the Club is over-seeing this?  Filbert! The Birch? 

He will hire people who pick the players, he shouldn't be getting involved in WHO we buy. Of course he has inout on contracts also, but it's not always cut and dry. If we have a player lined up, we make a fair offer and they reject it. The manager, whoever that is then goes to Rudkin and Top and says we NEED this player... and Top green lights it. Or Vichai used to say, get the moves done for the players we want, KP has it covered in the long run... then suddenly KP doesn't have it covered. Who takes the bullet there?

 

I'd rather focus on the big stuff that ultimately meant dozens of problems trickling down from it. That's poor player recruitment and giving Rodgers the keys to the castle. If we bought well, nobody would care what contracts they were on. 

 

 

 

 

[Ric Flair]

12 minutes ago, Babylon said:

 

Here you go. "Two clubs have been in for Boubakary Soumare but Leicester failed to agree terms with Monaco and Soumare rejected a move to the second club, as Jannik Vestergaard did to Fulham in what was potentially a £10million move."

https://theathletic.com/3533987/2022/08/25/leicester-city-rodgers-transfers-wrong/

 

It's only really been in the last few years we've not been able to shift players, previously we mostly managed to get rid other than a few. We managed to shift Iborra and Musa, the latter being a bloody miracle. So something changed. 

 

What I'm trying to say is that it's highly unlikely it's JUST down to asking too much, there is going to be a dozen contributory factors that has made it harder. That's not excusing it, some of those factors are likely self made! Then you have the players themselves, the likes of Tielemans has clearly had an eye on the exit almost from when he joined, he's not got the move he thought he would due to his poor form. Accepting offers doesn't mean they move when it's appealing to get a free transfer. Soyuncu has got himself an amazing move off the back of it, if we'd accepted £5m in the summer from a dozen clubs, would they have been what he wanted if he knew others were sniffing about for when the contract ended. 

 

 

I agree it's only been the last 3-4 years but as a consequence its caused us problems! I suppose playing devil's advocate, the only reason Iborra and Musa went was we actually managed to get teams to pay pretty large fees! We made a loss on Iborra but as I've alluded to before, we seem to ask for whatever is left on their amortised transfer fee.

 

So it's quite possibly been that our valuations have always been consistent but in recent years, with the inflated wages we've also started paying our entire squad, we've hit a brick wall. Hopefully we learn.

[orangecity23]

17 minutes ago, Babylon said:

He will hire people who pick the players, he shouldn't be getting involved in WHO we buy. Of course he has inout on contracts also, but it's not always cut and dry.

 

 

 

 

We didn't have a head of recruitment last summer, as the Conger Eel had swam off to Atalanta, and Glover didn't start until after the transfer window had shut. So if he wasn't involved in recruitment last summer - who was?

[Babylon]

21 minutes ago, orangecity23 said:

We didn't have a head of recruitment last summer, as the Conger Eel had swam off to Atalanta, and Glover didn't start until after the transfer window had shut. So if he wasn't involved in recruitment last summer - who was?

Our targets are scouted and lined up months and years in advance. Plus... we didn't even have money to sign anyone, so I'm not sure a summer of almost zero activity is one to look at. 

[orangecity23]

11 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Our targets are scouted and lined up months and years in advance. Plus... we didn't even have money to sign anyone, so I'm not sure a summer of almost zero activity is one to look at. 

It's a summer where we were supposed to be having a "refresh" that never materialised due to a lack of sales, where we lost Kasper and Fofana and didn't adequately reinforce either area, although this lack of money had eased enough by January for us to suddenly be able to spend £30 million on Kristiansen and Souttar. All with Rudkin being about the only man left on deck while the ship was steering itself into an iceberg.

[jv1]

Another week passes and weve not managed to get any of them out of the door- wtaf is going on- all still training and in the photos as well including blooming soumare- I dont get how it works for the new gaffer- he cant be enjoying having 7 or 8 lads around the sessions and the changing rooms knowing they dont give a monkeys because he isnt picking them and want away- absolutely crazy- atmosphere around the place must be very interesting- the club arent doing enough to support the manager but will still expect the results- enzo has been a miracle worker so far getting those 6 points when we have been bang average- he needs 4 more in and these 7 or 8 out- get on with it already

[HankMarvin]

22 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Our targets are scouted and lined up months and years in advance. Plus... we didn't even have money to sign anyone, so I'm not sure a summer of almost zero activity is one to look at. 

Lots of speculation there.

 

Transfers are often also dynamic, players becoming available, unsettled, bid by other clubs, relegated etc.

 

Whilst there are cases of players we have scouted, remaining on the radar for sometime it’s by no means as cut and dry as you allude to.

[mozartfox]

3 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

Lots of speculation there.

 

Transfers are often also dynamic, players becoming available, unsettled, bid by other clubs, relegated etc.

 

Whilst there are cases of players we have scouted, remaining on the radar for sometime it’s by no means as cut and dry as you allude to.

Plus our Recruitment Team’s radar was the same one that was in operation at Pearl Harbor in December 1941.