Rudkin

[Finnegan]

10 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

Basket case is probably harsh but I do think the volatility in itself does kill this argument about us being a particularly well-run club.

 

There are only a handful of clubs in the world though that truly have the kind of vision we're talking about and truly commit to it. Clubs like Dortmund, Ajax, Man City, lately Liverpool, Brighton, Brentford (it's too early to say Newcastle IMO) and the like are exceptions. I think our problem as Leicester fans is we used to think we were in this club and we've found out we're not. 

 

I really have to insist though, again, this term basket case or this term badly run, it's just not us. 

 

Watford are a badly run football club, Everton are a badly run football club. We could have mimicked either last year, chopping and changing managers all year or spending ourselves in to massive debt and drama. We didn't.

 

Brendan Rodgers was crying out for us to be a badly run football club but our chairman and the board (who a disappointing number of people turned on) said no. Top said, sorry Brendan, I HAVE backed you, we HAVE let you spend, if we keep going the club are going to be in serious financial trouble. So we didn't. 

 

Our owners have always maintained the club should be reasonably self sufficient, should spend fairly sensibly and we have. 

 

The problem is that we (the fans) conflate making some bad decisions with being poorly run. Obviously to us Vestergaard, Bertrand, Soumare, etc look like terrible decisions and so we complain that squad management has been poor. But all of this can be traced back ultimately to putting trust in the staff we'd hired to do the job. Operationally, from a business point of view, we did everything we were supposed to. 

 

I do think the club stuck with Rodgers too long, that's obvious, but again there's an argument that it's a reflection of the club wanting to have faith and loyalty for it's employees and trusting them to turn it around.

 

We're such a badly run football club that we've been able to face relegation and the massive financial headache it is, even though we've sold away future TV rights and all of that, even though we needed to rebuild half the squad with loads leaving, and how have we come out? With a really promising prospect of a new manager, some excellent new signings, a brand new team well assembled for the new coach and with a 100% record so far this year? 

 

I just don't buy it. We're fine. Rudkin "will do", we'll likely go back up and largely get back to where we were without too much major drama. 

 

Meanwhile Forest have about 80 players on their books and are owned by a pirate who is spending beyond their means, Everton look on the verge to face major points deductions, can't finance their new stadium and are spiralling in to debt and Watford are Watford. 

 

Edited 26 August 2023 by Finnegan

[99 Problems]

23 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

There are only a handful of clubs in the world though that truly have the kind of vision we're talking about and truly commit to it. Clubs like Dortmund, Ajax, Man City, lately Liverpool, Brighton, Brentford (it's too early to say Newcastle IMO) and the like are exceptions. I think our problem as Leicester fans is we used to think we were in this club and we've found out we're not. 

 

I really have to insist though, again, this term basket case or this term badly run, it's just not us. 

 

Watford are a badly run football club, Everton are a badly run football club. We could have mimicked either last year, chopping and changing managers all year or spending ourselves in to massive debt and drama. We didn't.

 

Brendan Rodgers was crying out for us to be a badly run football club but our chairman and the board (who a disappointing number of people turned on) said no. Top said, sorry Brendan, I HAVE backed you, we HAVE let you spend, if we keep going the club are going to be in serious financial trouble. So we didn't. 

 

Our owners have always maintained the club should be reasonably self sufficient, should spend fairly sensibly and we have. 

 

The problem is that we (the fans) conflate making some bad decisions with being poorly run. Obviously to us Vestergaard, Bertrand, Soumare, etc look like terrible decisions and so we complain that squad management has been poor. But all of this can be traced back ultimately to putting trust in the staff we'd hired to do the job. Operationally, from a business point of view, we did everything we were supposed to. 

 

I do think the club stuck with Rodgers too long, that's obvious, but again there's an argument that it's a reflection of the club wanting to have faith and loyalty for it's employees and trusting them to turn it around.

 

We're such a badly run football club that we've been able to face relegation and the massive financial headache it is, even though we've sold away future TV rights and all of that, even though we needed to rebuild half the squad with loads leaving, and how have we come out? With a really promising prospect of a new manager, some excellent new signings, a brand new team well assembled for the new coach and with a 100% record so far this year? 

 

I just don't buy it. We're fine. Rudkin "will do", we'll likely go back up and largely get back to where we were without too much major drama. 

 

Meanwhile Forest have about 80 players on their books and are owned by a pirate who is spending beyond their means, Everton look on the verge to face major points deductions, can't finance their new stadium and are spiralling in to debt and Watford are Watford. 

 

Since when has looking at other badly run clubs been a good way of making the case that we’re not so bad after all? I’ve never understood that logic. 
 

I don’t really care about Everton, Leeds or other clubs who happen to be worse run clubs than us. What I care about is the transition this club has made over the last few years since Vichais passing from a financially healthy and ambitious PL club with everything going for it to car crashing into the championship with barely a pot to piss in because we have a board that took their eye off the ball completely 

 

And before someone throws in the inevitable Covid argument, let’s remember what really started the decline - breaking the successful recruitment and sale model and in the summer of 2021, spending money we didn’t have on awful signings while trying to tie down players on new contracts who didn’t want to be here anymore. 
 

Leicester are an example of one of the fastest declines since Leeds United back in the early 2000s - I doubt even Mike Ashley could have done much better than taking a top 5 PL club and FA cup winners and dumping in the championship with record losses 2 years later 

Edited 26 August 2023 by 99 Problems

[Daggers]

What’s the Finners forecast, does anyone know?

I didn’t enter the thread prepared for this.

 

[Bourbon Fox]

55 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Meanwhile Forest are owned by a pirate

 

This made me laaaaaaargggh

[Drink Water]

2 hours ago, Finnegan said:

and largely get back to where we were without too much major drama. 

 

Challenging for Top 4/5? 

[Finnegan]

33 minutes ago, Drink Water said:

Challenging for Top 4/5? 

 

I mean i honestly don't see any reason we can't and won't be back to pushing for consistent top half finishes if we get straight back up this year. 

[Drink Water]

5 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I mean i honestly don't see any reason we can't and won't be back to pushing for consistent top half finishes if we get straight back up this year. 

How do you think we'd perform in Europa league 25/26, assuming we're using the same tactics and playstyle but a much better squad obviously and possibly Casadei as a permanent player.

[fuchsntf]

3 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

There are only a handful of clubs in the world though that truly have the kind of vision we're talking about and truly commit to it. Clubs like Dortmund, Ajax, Man City, lately Liverpool, Brighton, Brentford (it's too early to say Newcastle IMO) and the like are exceptions. I think our problem as Leicester fans is we used to think we were in this club and we've found out we're not. 

 

I really have to insist though, again, this term basket case or this term badly run, it's just not us. 

 

Watford are a badly run football club, Everton are a badly run football club. We could have mimicked either last year, chopping and changing managers all year or spending ourselves in to massive debt and drama. We didn't.

 

Brendan Rodgers was crying out for us to be a badly run football club but our chairman and the board (who a disappointing number of people turned on) said no. Top said, sorry Brendan, I HAVE backed you, we HAVE let you spend, if we keep going the club are going to be in serious financial trouble. So we didn't. 

 

Our owners have always maintained the club should be reasonably self sufficient, should spend fairly sensibly and we have. 

 

The problem is that we (the fans) conflate making some bad decisions with being poorly run. Obviously to us Vestergaard, Bertrand, Soumare, etc look like terrible decisions and so we complain that squad management has been poor. But all of this can be traced back ultimately to putting trust in the staff we'd hired to do the job. Operationally, from a business point of view, we did everything we were supposed to. 

 

I do think the club stuck with Rodgers too long, that's obvious, but again there's an argument that it's a reflection of the club wanting to have faith and loyalty for it's employees and trusting them to turn it around.

 

We're such a badly run football club that we've been able to face relegation and the massive financial headache it is, even though we've sold away future TV rights and all of that, even though we needed to rebuild half the squad with loads leaving, and how have we come out? With a really promising prospect of a new manager, some excellent new signings, a brand new team well assembled for the new coach and with a 100% record so far this year? 

 

I just don't buy it. We're fine. Rudkin "will do", we'll likely go back up and largely get back to where we were without too much major drama. 

 

Meanwhile Forest have about 80 players on their books and are owned by a pirate who is spending beyond their means, Everton look on the verge to face major points deductions, can't finance their new stadium and are spiralling in to debt and Watford are Watford. 

 

Top post of the year….

I  knew there was somewhere a bloody good reason why I liked you..

The Watfords/Everton’s/W.Hams + some other club’s quiet/hidden agendas,

We never, & nowhere near ran into their homemade entitled( maybe blind) Avenues.

 

In our (club) predicament,

Top had to give Rodgers a fair time,but maybe overstepped from fans viewpoint the “fair”!!  
And to be honest we the fans are not party to the conversations along our clubs corridors.

Top clubs because of financial clout and influence,can carry several bad descisions

over a few seasons…

Clubs like ours working just under or competing for that  European water mark simply can’t..!

Maybe Brighton,Brentford learnt from us,or just didn’t allow themselves to get sucked in.

Though they haven’t got that title Enigma and all it brings behind it.

IMHO we overstepped our expectation,and forgot how to manipulate that humble & innocent story to our own good.We instead embraced the BS of the open market,and naively or arrogantly went where even devils fear to tread.
Plus we were too nice and agreeable within our own clubs contracts. That don’t forget was well before Top’s taking singular main responsibility reins. The title one could say was the sowing of the relegation seed,because we hardly did anything right thereafter…And fans were blind to it all & just riding on the Aurora surrounding club and city interest.

I am a massive BVB fan,and they have made some bloopers,believe me,( ie: one chasing Brazilian names but not top stars,as other questionable star channels) but the Bundesliga rules does also help them indirectly, to not lean too far out of the window..

Anyway the Bundesliga Its a different culture that the PL couldn’t yet even try to mimick. We work without too many constraints,

and ride hypocritical Versions of FFP, not even Bayern,  

>>>Leverkusen,Wolfsberg— ( working under Firm/Company Names)<<<

would allow themselves to tred that simular path.Though financial abuse is not

unknown…but on very different scales. I wonder if middle-east companies could even get a foothold in the Deutschefussballverband…Only through the normal controlled level of relationship…

BUT  we Brits are pirates and proud buccaneers,we enjoy knocking on the deadman’s chest,

so we sail freely & under all flags through the storm of free enterprise .

After Mahrez signing,we never really made such another coup in the market.

also by no means…Not meaning some good or decent signing were not made.
 

Though we should not undervalue the damaging effects that Corona had on KP and financial capabilities.. KP,Top and family ,time will later prove they were quite astute in holding business and LCFC on a steady kiel.  
Those  questionable FT-topics on questioning LCFC-ownership,were from intern FT clickbait theorists,who forgot or even today have any idea ,

what the world is going through, let alone..our partners …

 KP, and LCFC Interfaces themselves( business) are going through..

Rudkin-Whelan are middle-players in the wider scheme,but still should be questioned and open to scrutiny…Its simple under their responsibilities too many things have slipped by,through and even sharp knives fallen on withinside their tenure.
 

[Philkeavo]

3 hours ago, Finnegan said:

Well said Finnegan. First class post and spot on analysis of where we are as a club. The only mistake the club made imo was it stuck with Rodgers too long but as you say that was entirely consistent with the way our owners behave. 
 

There are only a handful of clubs in the world though that truly have the kind of vision we're talking about and truly commit to it. Clubs like Dortmund, Ajax, Man City, lately Liverpool, Brighton, Brentford (it's too early to say Newcastle IMO) and the like are exceptions. I think our problem as Leicester fans is we used to think we were in this club and we've found out we're not. 

 

I really have to insist though, again, this term basket case or this term badly run, it's just not us. 

 

Watford are a badly run football club, Everton are a badly run football club. We could have mimicked either last year, chopping and changing managers all year or spending ourselves in to massive debt and drama. We didn't.

 

Brendan Rodgers was crying out for us to be a badly run football club but our chairman and the board (who a disappointing number of people turned on) said no. Top said, sorry Brendan, I HAVE backed you, we HAVE let you spend, if we keep going the club are going to be in serious financial trouble. So we didn't. 

 

Our owners have always maintained the club should be reasonably self sufficient, should spend fairly sensibly and we have. 

 

The problem is that we (the fans) conflate making some bad decisions with being poorly run. Obviously to us Vestergaard, Bertrand, Soumare, etc look like terrible decisions and so we complain that squad management has been poor. But all of this can be traced back ultimately to putting trust in the staff we'd hired to do the job. Operationally, from a business point of view, we did everything we were supposed to. 

 

I do think the club stuck with Rodgers too long, that's obvious, but again there's an argument that it's a reflection of the club wanting to have faith and loyalty for it's employees and trusting them to turn it around.

 

We're such a badly run football club that we've been able to face relegation and the massive financial headache it is, even though we've sold away future TV rights and all of that, even though we needed to rebuild half the squad with loads leaving, and how have we come out? With a really promising prospect of a new manager, some excellent new signings, a brand new team well assembled for the new coach and with a 100% record so far this year? 

 

I just don't buy it. We're fine. Rudkin "will do", we'll likely go back up and largely get back to where we were without too much major drama. 

 

Meanwhile Forest have about 80 players on their books and are owned by a pirate who is spending beyond their means, Everton look on the verge to face major points deductions, can't finance their new stadium and are spiralling in to debt and Watford are Watford. 

 

 

[fuchsntf]

54 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I mean i honestly don't see any reason we can't and won't be back to pushing for consistent top half finishes if we get straight back up this year. 

 

46 minutes ago, Drink Water said:

How do you think we'd perform in Europa league 25/26, assuming we're using the same tactics and playstyle but a much better squad obviously and possibly Casadei as a permanent player.

Too early yet..

but why not throw the positive vibes out..

The ifs are quite simple to put on the table.We can mess around with the cutlery,but the major dish,IMO has to be,we have to already be prepared with a Bbone of players with required skills to support our system,and many following us with permanent contracts. Any keystones to our play the club have  to have them on already sorted contracts.

My biggest fear ,we get promoted,with Michelin-stars ,but nobody is left in the kitchen,to create the menus for the next season..

Even now I am sure we will see players stamp their names

through the team,club & terraces, we can’t afford again to take the same path as previous seasons,we have to recognise early those we need to confirm their place in the team/squad….

[mozartfox]

A massive 5 days ahead.  He really needs to play a blinder.

[Matt]

I'm probably late to this discussion here/it's probably being discussed in the relevant players threads but, why are we seemingly being so stringent with our asking price on Daka, yet according to some (albeit questionable) sources our asking price for Nacho was less to start with and now we're looking at lowering it?

 

It's one thing not being able to shift players we want to shift due to their wage demands but it's another not budging on the asking price on our part on a player that hasn't featured yet being quite amicable on a player who is featuring, seems to be firm in the managers plans and the player you'd choose to keep out of the two.

 

Not to mention we're led to believe the sticking point with Piroe they were asking for £5m more than we want to pay.

 

Yet here we are valuing Nacho at £20m but apparently writing off £5m and willing to accept £15m.

 

Edited 29 August 2023 by Matt

[Phenom]

On 26/08/2023 at 01:28, Finnegan said:

 

There are only a handful of clubs in the world though that truly have the kind of vision we're talking about and truly commit to it. Clubs like Dortmund, Ajax, Man City, lately Liverpool, Brighton, Brentford (it's too early to say Newcastle IMO) and the like are exceptions. I think our problem as Leicester fans is we used to think we were in this club and we've found out we're not. 

 

I really have to insist though, again, this term basket case or this term badly run, it's just not us. 

 

Watford are a badly run football club, Everton are a badly run football club. We could have mimicked either last year, chopping and changing managers all year or spending ourselves in to massive debt and drama. We didn't.

 

Brendan Rodgers was crying out for us to be a badly run football club but our chairman and the board (who a disappointing number of people turned on) said no. Top said, sorry Brendan, I HAVE backed you, we HAVE let you spend, if we keep going the club are going to be in serious financial trouble. So we didn't. 

 

Our owners have always maintained the club should be reasonably self sufficient, should spend fairly sensibly and we have. 

 

The problem is that we (the fans) conflate making some bad decisions with being poorly run. Obviously to us Vestergaard, Bertrand, Soumare, etc look like terrible decisions and so we complain that squad management has been poor. But all of this can be traced back ultimately to putting trust in the staff we'd hired to do the job. Operationally, from a business point of view, we did everything we were supposed to. 

 

I do think the club stuck with Rodgers too long, that's obvious, but again there's an argument that it's a reflection of the club wanting to have faith and loyalty for it's employees and trusting them to turn it around.

 

We're such a badly run football club that we've been able to face relegation and the massive financial headache it is, even though we've sold away future TV rights and all of that, even though we needed to rebuild half the squad with loads leaving, and how have we come out? With a really promising prospect of a new manager, some excellent new signings, a brand new team well assembled for the new coach and with a 100% record so far this year? 

 

I just don't buy it. We're fine. Rudkin "will do", we'll likely go back up and largely get back to where we were without too much major drama. 

 

Meanwhile Forest have about 80 players on their books and are owned by a pirate who is spending beyond their means, Everton look on the verge to face major points deductions, can't finance their new stadium and are spiralling in to debt and Watford are Watford. 

 

What do you call being relegated with the 7th highest wage budget in the league? I don’t think this is what they meant when they said they wanted to compete for Championships.

[The Doctor]

2 hours ago, Phenom said:

What do you call being relegated with the 7th highest wage budget in the league? I don’t think this is what they meant when they said they wanted to compete for Championships.

Mistakes were obviously made, persisting with Rodgers for that long being the obvious one, but a basket case club is Watford not getting what manager of the month is supposed to be, west brom being used to fund their chairman's other businesses, Everton deciding to build a massive stadium while not being able to afford any of it, the entirety of the Ridsdale and Bates administrations at Leeds. A basket case club is one which lurches from problem to problem, stacking them up like a house of cards and hoping it collapses on someone else, not a club that had one bad season due to excessive loyalty to a manager who'd passed his sell by date

[gurru991]

3 hours ago, The Doctor said:

Mistakes were obviously made, persisting with Rodgers for that long being the obvious one, but a basket case club is Watford not getting what manager of the month is supposed to be, west brom being used to fund their chairman's other businesses, Everton deciding to build a massive stadium while not being able to afford any of it, the entirety of the Ridsdale and Bates administrations at Leeds. A basket case club is one which lurches from problem to problem, stacking them up like a house of cards and hoping it collapses on someone else, not a club that had one bad season due to excessive loyalty to a manager who'd passed his sell by date

Well Said Sir.

[Phenom]

4 hours ago, The Doctor said:

Mistakes were obviously made, persisting with Rodgers for that long being the obvious one, but a basket case club is Watford not getting what manager of the month is supposed to be, west brom being used to fund their chairman's other businesses, Everton deciding to build a massive stadium while not being able to afford any of it, the entirety of the Ridsdale and Bates administrations at Leeds. A basket case club is one which lurches from problem to problem, stacking them up like a house of cards and hoping it collapses on someone else, not a club that had one bad season due to excessive loyalty to a manager who'd passed his sell by date

It’s all semantics. We are not a well run club right now. People needed to have been let go that weren’t. Let’s hope it doesn’t cost us further. 

[Sly]

We are a club that has made mistakes and this season will be a lesson.

 

Fans are harsh, and we all were frustrated last season with how things went down. Smiths points per game would have seen us mid to lower table but ultimately safe. 
 

Relegated with the highest wage bill and squad value ever …… “you’ll never sign that”.
 

Football itself is a basket case business, compared to more traditional business. However, I would never put us in the same league as the Portsmouths, Leeds, Everton, Watford, Derby, Forest, Reading and whatever it is Chelsea are doing these days, as that’s totally insane. 

[The Doctor]

3 hours ago, Phenom said:

It’s all semantics. We are not a well run club right now. People needed to have been let go that weren’t. Let’s hope it doesn’t cost us further. 

I mean we're not a Brighton/Brentford/Man City level tight ship, well run club, but we're not a late 2000s Portsmouth, early 2000s Leeds, a Reading or a West Brom. We're nowhere near badly run on football standards 

[Dames]

Feels like whilst there are some good points  being made in this thread there also seems to be a huge of dropping of standards in this because we’ve had a few wins against poor opposition this season. Whilst we might not be as bad as some other poorly run clubs it does not mean we are a well run club either. 
 

Being relegated with the 7th highest wage bill in the division is not the sign of a well run club.

 

Letting well over 100m of talent walk away for free is not the sign of a well run club.

 

Letting a manager consistently complain publicly about players, fans, owners and anything else he could think of without any repercussions is not the sign of a well run club. 
 

Sacking the manager and dropping points in 2 very important games after an international break because of a lack of succession planning is not the sign of a well run club. 
 

Handing out huge contracts to squad players we are unable to shift is not the sign of a well run club. 

Keeping a DOF in position who is so spread thin across the wider business he cannot effectively do his job. 

 

People of course will make plenty of arguments for the above points but the fact is if we were such a well run club we wouldn’t be in the situation we are in. We would not have been held to ransom by players who didn’t want to be here and would ruthlessly shift them on for the benefit of the club. We would have a more balanced approach to contracts and a proper structure in place to ensure that we don’t overpay for players we might look to shift on. We wouldn’t have stuck with a manager who was clearly failing for so long as we’d have had a back up succession plan. 
 

A lot of what was required was actually sensible business decisions which is something KP were supposed to be good at. A few wins against some absolute dross doesn’t change any of the above and if i’m being completely honest it doesn’t look like the club have learned much because they are giving yet another manager too much power to dictate everything. If worst comes to worst and it goes wrong with Enzo there will be no back up plan and a new manager will have to come in and essentially do what was failing with the previous manager because he won’t have the tools required to do anything else. This is where we circle back to Rudkin because a competent DOF would be setting the standards and keeping his managers in check but he isn’t. 

[Sly]

1 hour ago, Dames said:

Feels like whilst there are some good points  being made in this thread there also seems to be a huge of dropping of standards in this because we’ve had a few wins against poor opposition this season. Whilst we might not be as bad as some other poorly run clubs it does not mean we are a well run club either. 
 

Being relegated with the 7th highest wage bill in the division is not the sign of a well run club.

 

Letting well over 100m of talent walk away for free is not the sign of a well run club.

 

Letting a manager consistently complain publicly about players, fans, owners and anything else he could think of without any repercussions is not the sign of a well run club. 
 

Sacking the manager and dropping points in 2 very important games after an international break because of a lack of succession planning is not the sign of a well run club. 
 

Handing out huge contracts to squad players we are unable to shift is not the sign of a well run club. 

Keeping a DOF in position who is so spread thin across the wider business he cannot effectively do his job. 

 

People of course will make plenty of arguments for the above points but the fact is if we were such a well run club we wouldn’t be in the situation we are in. We would not have been held to ransom by players who didn’t want to be here and would ruthlessly shift them on for the benefit of the club. We would have a more balanced approach to contracts and a proper structure in place to ensure that we don’t overpay for players we might look to shift on. We wouldn’t have stuck with a manager who was clearly failing for so long as we’d have had a back up succession plan. 
 

A lot of what was required was actually sensible business decisions which is something KP were supposed to be good at. A few wins against some absolute dross doesn’t change any of the above and if i’m being completely honest it doesn’t look like the club have learned much because they are giving yet another manager too much power to dictate everything. If worst comes to worst and it goes wrong with Enzo there will be no back up plan and a new manager will have to come in and essentially do what was failing with the previous manager because he won’t have the tools required to do anything else. This is where we circle back to Rudkin because a competent DOF would be setting the standards and keeping his managers in check but he isn’t. 

In my opinion, Rodgers needed sacking after that FA Cup defeat against Forest. 

Even if we’d have appointed Smith at that point, we wouldn’t have been where we are today. 
 

Rodgers mismanaged that squad. However you’re right, we should have cashed in on Soyuncu, Tielemans, Mendy, Amartey etc before we even reached the point of them waking away for free. 

[Dames]

3 minutes ago, Sly said:

In my opinion, Rodgers needed sacking after that FA Cup defeat against Forest. 

Even if we’d have appointed Smith at that point, we wouldn’t have been where we are today. 
 

Rodgers mismanaged that squad. However you’re right, we should have cashed in on Soyuncu, Tielemans, Mendy, Amartey etc before we even reached the point of them waking away for free. 

Agree with when he needed sacking but it also backs up the point that we were so poor for so long a well run club would have either A) Gotten rid of the manager sooner or B) noticed the signs and had a succession plan in place just incase they needed it. They did neither and just buried their head in the sand. 

 

@Finnegan made a good point when it came to Rodgers demanding backing and the board refusing to budge but I feel at that point we were too far gone and the decision not to either back or sack him and instead sit on the fence is another sign that we are not a well run club. The best decision they could come up with was just sit on their hands and hope for the best despite the obvious and growing issues. 

[Tommy G]

2 hours ago, Dames said:

Feels like whilst there are some good points  being made in this thread there also seems to be a huge of dropping of standards in this because we’ve had a few wins against poor opposition this season. Whilst we might not be as bad as some other poorly run clubs it does not mean we are a well run club either. 
 

Being relegated with the 7th highest wage bill in the division is not the sign of a well run club.

 

Letting well over 100m of talent walk away for free is not the sign of a well run club.

 

Letting a manager consistently complain publicly about players, fans, owners and anything else he could think of without any repercussions is not the sign of a well run club. 
 

Sacking the manager and dropping points in 2 very important games after an international break because of a lack of succession planning is not the sign of a well run club. 
 

Handing out huge contracts to squad players we are unable to shift is not the sign of a well run club. 

Keeping a DOF in position who is so spread thin across the wider business he cannot effectively do his job. 

 

People of course will make plenty of arguments for the above points but the fact is if we were such a well run club we wouldn’t be in the situation we are in. We would not have been held to ransom by players who didn’t want to be here and would ruthlessly shift them on for the benefit of the club. We would have a more balanced approach to contracts and a proper structure in place to ensure that we don’t overpay for players we might look to shift on. We wouldn’t have stuck with a manager who was clearly failing for so long as we’d have had a back up succession plan. 
 

A lot of what was required was actually sensible business decisions which is something KP were supposed to be good at. A few wins against some absolute dross doesn’t change any of the above and if i’m being completely honest it doesn’t look like the club have learned much because they are giving yet another manager too much power to dictate everything. If worst comes to worst and it goes wrong with Enzo there will be no back up plan and a new manager will have to come in and essentially do what was failing with the previous manager because he won’t have the tools required to do anything else. This is where we circle back to Rudkin because a competent DOF would be setting the standards and keeping his managers in check but he isn’t. 

You make some good poinst in your wider post, but is there any proof of this? Because he is actively involved in other businesses doesn't mean he doesn't have the time to do his primary role. Often businesses will list directors on all group companies for continuity, signing accounts, BoD etc - doesn't mean they are actively in the weeds day to day. I think I'm listed as a director of 10 companies on Co House but only really active day to day in 3 or 4, same principle applies.   

 

For the record I'd replace Rudkin in a heartbeat

[Dames]

1 minute ago, Tommy G said:

You make some good poinst in your wider post, but is there any proof of this? Because he is actively involved in other businesses doesn't mean he doesn't have the time to do his primary role. Often businesses will list directors on all group companies for continuity, signing accounts, BoD etc - doesn't mean they are actively in the weeds day to day. I think I'm listed as a director of 10 companies on Co House but only really active day to day in 3 or 4, same principle applies.   

 

For the record I'd replace Rudkin in a heartbeat

I'm trying to be kind to him for being not very good at his job. I think with a DoF role in a structure like ours it needs to be a full time focus, he can't do a few hours a day on Leicester, a few on Leuven and then tending to the horses as well. Especially in summer when all 3 of these responsibilities are at their most active. 

[Ric Flair]

17 hours ago, Matt said:

I'm probably late to this discussion here/it's probably being discussed in the relevant players threads but, why are we seemingly being so stringent with our asking price on Daka, yet according to some (albeit questionable) sources our asking price for Nacho was less to start with and now we're looking at lowering it?

 

It's one thing not being able to shift players we want to shift due to their wage demands but it's another not budging on the asking price on our part on a player that hasn't featured yet being quite amicable on a player who is featuring, seems to be firm in the managers plans and the player you'd choose to keep out of the two.

 

Not to mention we're led to believe the sticking point with Piroe they were asking for £5m more than we want to pay.

 

Yet here we are valuing Nacho at £20m but apparently writing off £5m and willing to accept £15m.

 

Purely down to accounting. Iheanacho has no outstanding amortised transfer fee left on our books and will walk for free next summer. Daka has 3 years left of the £23m we paid.

 

Our club seem fixated on this, possibly for good reason.

[KFS]

Rudkin’s the type of guy to tell anyone with ears that he’s “not on that social media thing” when in reality he’d have about 3 Facebook friends anyway