Rudkin

[Babylon]

On 13/01/2024 at 10:15, Ric Flair said:

The issue is we don't get rid of players we want to move on with more than a year left on their deals either. The way we operate, we're more open to selling for low fees in the final year of contracts but at that point players can sit out and make huge financial gains and teams aren't prepared to try and counteract that and it ultimately cost them more.

We've had deals agreed that players have turned down for one reason or another (Soumare, Vesty). That's not on him. 

 

We've also been in the position of there being no point in selling players or moving them on for nothing, as we'd need a replacement. See someone like Mendy, zero point moving him on last season if we don't have the budget to buy. On top of that, we then also have loads of players coming to the ends of their contracts, and little motivation to move when they get a lovely signing on fee and bumper wages down the line. 

 

People making out it's an easy situation to navigate or all on him I'm afraid are just missing the finer detail of the situation. 

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, honeybradger said:

We have had offers for the likes of Soumare in the past and turned them down. Think there were offers for Praet a few seasons ago as well.

The same people who reported an offer turned down, as also the people who reported we ACCEPTED an offer for Soumare. The one we turned in was significantly less than the offer we accepted... the player then turned down the move. 

[Daggers]

6 minutes ago, Babylon said:

We've had deals agreed that players have turned down for one reason or another (Soumare, Vesty). That's not on him. 

 

We've also been in the position of there being no point in selling players or moving them on for nothing, as we'd need a replacement. See someone like Mendy, zero point moving him on last season if we don't have the budget to buy. On top of that, we then also have loads of players coming to the ends of their contracts, and little motivation to move when they get a lovely signing on fee and bumper wages down the line. 

 

People making out it's an easy situation to navigate or all on him I'm afraid are just missing the finer detail of the situation. 

You realise I wait for you to post about Rudkin just so I can make another meme? 

 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

11 minutes ago, Babylon said:

We've had deals agreed that players have turned down for one reason or another (Soumare, Vesty). That's not on him. 

 

We've also been in the position of there being no point in selling players or moving them on for nothing, as we'd need a replacement. See someone like Mendy, zero point moving him on last season if we don't have the budget to buy. On top of that, we then also have loads of players coming to the ends of their contracts, and little motivation to move when they get a lovely signing on fee and bumper wages down the line. 

 

People making out it's an easy situation to navigate or all on him I'm afraid are just missing the finer detail of the situation. 

How do you KNOW this though? 

 

But in all seriousness they broke down over wages no? And who sanctioned those inflated wages in the first place to players that aren't worthy of them? Probably the Director of football.

[Babylon]

9 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

How do you KNOW this though? 

 

But in all seriousness they broke down over wages no? And who sanctioned those inflated wages in the first place to players that aren't worthy of them? Probably the Director of football.

I'm using the same sources Ric and others keeps quoting as fact we turned down deals, if YOU or others are going to accept a source, then at least accept it when they also say something you don't want to hear. 

 

Vesty said why didn't he? Rodgers blew smoke up his arse about being part of his plans (despite him not being)  . See what Andy Carrol said about Rodgers and how he deals with players. And another time his wife was due to give birth.

 

Soumare we know little about other than he didn't fancy the club who bid. 

 

We shifted players seemingly okay prior to us having to cut the cloth, so perhaps we need to look at the changes in the situation as the problem. 

Edited 16 January by Babylon

[Ric Flair]

19 minutes ago, Babylon said:

We've had deals agreed that players have turned down for one reason or another (Soumare, Vesty). That's not on him. 

 

We've also been in the position of there being no point in selling players or moving them on for nothing, as we'd need a replacement. See someone like Mendy, zero point moving him on last season if we don't have the budget to buy. On top of that, we then also have loads of players coming to the ends of their contracts, and little motivation to move when they get a lovely signing on fee and bumper wages down the line. 

 

People making out it's an easy situation to navigate or all on him I'm afraid are just missing the finer detail of the situation. 

Yeah, got no issues with that. I was explaining why we do what we do. If we sign a player for £20m, they flop and we accept £10m a year layer, we're booking a loss which unless you have the financial flexibility to do so, ain't happening. You end up worse off.

 

Lessons need and hopefully have been learnt on the reasons for what puts us in this position though. Wages and transfer fees on incomings have been questionable and then you swap what you sow. 

 

Criticism is valid.

[sm1]

4 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Is it any surprise the criticism starts when our manager confesses he only found out two weeks ago about the financial position. His direct line is to Rudkin. We've been here before.

 

This isn't even about whether he's failed in his role as a DOF in the aspects of recruitment for sensible fees and wages. This appears to be either a lack of basic communication or being economical with the truth.

 

It would be beggars belief that the footballing gods have gone against us twice in 2 years on unplanned financial compliance that has meant the goal posts are moved.

 

 

Yeah it's no coincidence two managers back to back have said the exact same thing. The biggest problem is Top will just ignore it.

[Babylon]

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

Yeah, got no issues with that. I was explaining why we do what we do. If we sign a player for £20m, they flop and we accept £10m a year layer, we're booking a loss which unless you have the financial flexibility to do so, ain't happening. You end up worse off.

 

Lessons need and hopefully have been learnt on the reasons for what puts us in this position though. Wages and transfer fees on incomings have been questionable and then you swap what you sow. 

 

Criticism is valid.

Of course, it is; I've not said it's not. We don't know the ins and outs, but in one of the many delves into our behind the scenes goings on with transfers over the years, it was said the head of recruitment past on up the chain their opinion on valuation of said player. If Rodgers and his pal were picking duds and over valuing them, that's on them. Of course you can say Rudkin shouldn't have hired them, it's valid... but he shouldn't be getting involved in valuing players IMO. He's a number cruncher and not a scout, people expecting him to have infinite knowledge of players and their values are wide of the mark. 

 

In terms of finances, if the board say don't worry about it, get the deals done (how many people over the years scream on here about just getting deals done and paying what they want). Then the owner dies, FFP changes happen and he's then just having to react to that. 

 

The simple fact is we just don't know and are likely to never know. 

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

Don't even get me started on effectively 4 full time positions that he holds across LCFC, King Power and OH Leuven.

Yea it’s ridiculous. I bet he’s a shit at delegating as well. 

[MPH]

28 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Yeah, got no issues with that. I was explaining why we do what we do. If we sign a player for £20m, they flop and we accept £10m a year layer, we're booking a loss which unless you have the financial flexibility to do so, ain't happening. You end up worse off.

 

Lessons need and hopefully have been learnt on the reasons for what puts us in this position though. Wages and transfer fees on incomings have been questionable and then you swap what you sow. 

 

Criticism is valid.

 

 

Don't you end up even more worse off if you don't accept the offer and let them just rot along the peripheral of the first team?

[fuchsntf]

7 hours ago, st albans fox said:

The ones we wanted out were on higher wages than most of those at other clubs (probably rudkin’s fault) and it would have actually damaged our ffp situation to have sold them for a low fee and had to pay up their contracts to the difference of what we owed them and what another team would pay them. Add in the excellent workplace that exists here and some players are content to not play than take a financial hit. 
your comments re contacts etc are probably valid too

the buck has to stop somewhere but i also think it’s a little more complex than we understand financially. 

Though not excusing Rudkin or player recruitment team(s) we have had,over 10-14 yr period  and now this season starting anew.. 

 

I want to throw in also something else

That hard nosed people forget and runs through KP and makes us what we are is Vichai legacy, no doubt carried on through Top,towards loyalties that is once in the club, looking after the KP family. 

 

It's not about keeping those that want to move on, we even seemed to push

Players out a la Barnes, who would prefer to stay... And ones who have had offers and knocked on managers door to say I still want to be part of this squad...

 

And this time around every single squad  member has eventually found game time and become an inaugural, suprised member of the team despite a la. >FT early questioning postings< Vestergaard, Faes, Justin, Ndidi, Daka

 

One could say, KP might be their own worst enemies in this direction, but it has also served us well over ten years.

Even our various managers including Enzo has to accept it. 

FTers too willing to listen to noise and clickbait  many leaning even towards own media who have just used ill advised vicious circle FT general feelings regurgitating in the media.. 

 

I myself prefer to take one root of thought... Every single buy has to take its intern the mixed natural process, 

Taking the chances & opportunities, riding poor form, wait 2-4 phases if 

Players are suitable, automatic hit, rekindled hopes, never at any stage

get on any band wagon of negative incompetent posts, on players immediate or long term future...

 

Even if  like us who hit that rare peake of title  though never rushed, brought some questionble players, or totally misused their qualities. 

 

Top 6 financially can afford these mishits, clubs like us just can't carry it.. Plus the level of quality we brought compared to top 6 have a lower level of financial  return & career potential when trying to move on..Theirs can end up at RM or top Italian side.. 

 

Compared to other  "Also rans" 

one negative we do top, despite title is

having brought some players, that were just not worth the exhorbinate fees we originally paid. 

 

Though against all that, compare also our successes, late starters, rekindled careers, gobsmacking changes & seeing major cogs on hospital passes, actually return gametime and delivering top Mom performances.. Has it been that bad has we draw or somewhere between compared when outside commentators air their positive views.. 

 

FT do also carry baggage of diving early  towards the negatives, not stopping to think on our successes.. or forced consequences. 

 

So on this topic, I have no hit back on

Personal experience where responsibility lays.. Plus I won't jump on any easy ride  soap-opera band wagon.. I just don't know.. and thrown in above, 

My view of different persepectives

 

 

[Ric Flair]

21 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

Don't you end up even more worse off if you don't accept the offer and let them just rot along the peripheral of the first team?

Yes and no. No being that you've spread the transfer fee equally over x amount of years that's been planned for. Yes being you retain a player you don't want, they don't want to be here and you still incur their wages each year as a result.

 

The happy medium which fans get frustrated over is loans with options to buy. The loan fee is a + in the year they go on loan as well as covering the wages. There's no additional expense to the amortised transfer that hits the accounts over the term.

 

Unfortunately this is how football finance works, it won't change any time soon. In order to cut your losses you need financial flexibility to do so. Maybe sell others for a profit to mitigate losses on others etc. A prosperous academy of generating players both good enough for rhe 1st team but also a reputation for other clubs wanting to buy others that might not be ready for decent fees can help with that as it's pure profit.

 

Overall, a collective improvement in recruitment strategy is needed.

[MPH]

10 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Yes and no. No being that you've spread the transfer fee equally over x amount of years that's been planned for. Yes being you retain a player you don't want, they don't want to be here and you still incur their wages each year as a result.

 

The happy medium which fans get frustrated over is loans with options to buy. The loan fee is a + in the year they go on loan as well as covering the wages. There's no additional expense to the amortised transfer that hits the accounts over the term.

 

Unfortunately this is how football finance works, it won't change any time soon. In order to cut your losses you need financial flexibility to do so. Maybe sell others for a profit to mitigate losses on others etc. A prosperous academy of generating players both good enough for rhe 1st team but also a reputation for other clubs wanting to buy others that might not be ready for decent fees can help with that as it's pure profit.

 

Overall, a collective improvement in recruitment strategy is needed.

 

 

Totally get what you are saying and agree with the most of it.

 

I just think sometimes its more beneficial  taking a hit on a player than it is  to keep them. It isnt just about that initial outlay, its also about the wages.  I know it wouldn't make financial sense to flog every player you don't want but i also know its business 101 to understand you cant make a profit or get your money back on every deal you make.

[Ric Flair]

Just now, MPH said:

 

 

Totally get what you are saying and agree with the most of it.

 

I just think sometimes its more beneficial  taking a hit on a player than it is  to keep them. It isnt just about that initial outlay, its also about the wages.  I know it wouldn't make financial sense to flog every player you don't want but i also know its business 101 to understand you cant make a profit or get your money back on every deal you make.

I agree, it's why I think we have to bake some flexibility in to our strategy for these scenarios.

[MPH]

9 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I agree, it's why I think we have to bake some flexibility in to our strategy for these scenarios.

 

 

it does make you wonder, though... if we can afford the signings needed when we get promoted...

[Tommy G]

5 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Is it any surprise the criticism starts when our manager confesses he only found out two weeks ago about the financial position. His direct line is to Rudkin. We've been here before.

 

This isn't even about whether he's failed in his role as a DOF in the aspects of recruitment for sensible fees and wages. This appears to be either a lack of basic communication or being economical with the truth.

 

It would be beggars belief that the footballing gods have gone against us twice in 2 years on unplanned financial compliance that has meant the goal posts are moved.

 

 

Just because Maresca said he found out two weeks ago about the financial position doesn't mean it's true, he could be conveniently leaving out the detail where Rudkin has said there is money available if we sell players. Maresca knows we aren't or can't so has stated there isnt the funds available, which is the truth but half the story. 

 

Maresca knows his stock is sky high, he can say what he want's within reason, aside from caling Top a c**t he's safe - so he can peddle what he want's in the media. 

 

There is a reason why he said that, either to force the powers that be hand or to flex his own muscles. 

 

Rudkin has done plenty wrong, but it's all too convenient and naive when people lump on him because we haven't signed a player so far in this window.  

[Ric Flair]

4 hours ago, Tommy G said:

Just because Maresca said he found out two weeks ago about the financial position doesn't mean it's true, he could be conveniently leaving out the detail where Rudkin has said there is money available if we sell players. Maresca knows we aren't or can't so has stated there isnt the funds available, which is the truth but half the story. 

 

Maresca knows his stock is sky high, he can say what he want's within reason, aside from caling Top a c**t he's safe - so he can peddle what he want's in the media. 

 

There is a reason why he said that, either to force the powers that be hand or to flex his own muscles. 

 

Rudkin has done plenty wrong, but it's all too convenient and naive when people lump on him because we haven't signed a player so far in this window.  

Maresca might be fibbing, but Rodgers wasn't and they have ample opportunity to comment or at least prevent our managers keep publicly saying it. The fact they don't suggests there's something in it.

 

The Mercury seemingly won't leave it alone either. Another article today on it.

 

There's previous for astonishly poor communication so it's no surprise the criticism keeps coming.

[coolhandfox]

16 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Maresca might be fibbing, but Rodgers wasn't and they have ample opportunity to comment or at least prevent our managers keep publicly saying it. The fact they don't suggests there's something in it.

 

The Mercury seemingly won't leave it alone either. Another article today on it.

 

There's previous for astonishly poor communication so it's no surprise the criticism keeps coming.

Enzo repeatedly said in the summer we need to move players on to buy.

 

Not sure why he thinks that would change for the winter window.

 

 

[Ric Flair]

12 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Enzo repeatedly said in the summer we need to move players on to buy.

 

Not sure why he thinks that would change for the winter window.

 

 

Well I presume because someone didn't tell him that in the meetings they had ahead of January. 

 

Bottom line here is the voice of Maresca, the only one we'll hear from as the rest of the club are mutes. So folk can question Maresca's integrity and honesty or we have to assume history is repeating itself.

[coolhandfox]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

Well I presume because someone didn't tell him that in the meetings they had ahead of January. 

 

Bottom line here is the voice of Maresca, the only one we'll hear from as the rest of the club are mutes. So folk can question Maresca's integrity and honesty or we have to assume history is repeating itself.

I'm not questioning anyone integrity or honesty.

 

Be as you just said the word presume, we  don't have the context of the situation around what he said and knowledge of what gone on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[coolhandfox]

9 hours ago, Stadt said:

Newcastle bought Livramento for a similar price to Barnes, we just don't negotiate well - attributing it to FFP is good cover for the club.

 

Even in other non-sporting organisations as they grow, people are often out of the depth as the environment develops. King Power's COO or FD 15 years ago probably isn't the same one now, yet at Leicester none of the key personnel ever leave or get sacked behind the scenes. It's pretty stagnant and we've completely coincidentally I'm sure - been on the wane for years.

 

Top is seemingly quite hands off owner, he watches ages but he doesn't;t appear to be involved in much of the day to day. Consequently, it's absolutely pivotal the CEO and DoF do a great job given massive losses and the worst PL relegation ever, it's not the case.

Well Barnes wouldn't be FFP as the period he was sold in we come under Championship Clubs Profitability and Sustainability rules which are a lot stricter then the PL FFP.

[Jimmy]

Palace bid £4m for Iversen in the summer we rejected it as we were demanding £6m, why? it left us stuck with a player that was never going to play depreciating in value for 4 months paying his wages and now all we could do was find a loan for him, how much did we have to pay him during that time, how much of his wages are we paying during his loan?

 

Was it really worth it over £2m? I like that we play hardball over our stars but for players like this if the offer is reasonable take it..

 

How many offers for Praet have we rejected for a player we didn't want on a lot of money that we will lose for free this summer? Its just bad squad management and this all falls within Rudkin's remit, that's why people look at him

[coolhandfox]

9 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Palace bid £4m for Iversen in the summer we rejected it as we were demanding £6m, why? it left us stuck with a player that was never going to play depreciating in value for 4 months paying his wages and now all we could do was find a loan for him, how much did we have to pay him during that time, how much of his wages are we paying during his loan?

 

Was it really worth it over £2m? I like that we play hardball over our stars but for players like this if the offer is reasonable take it..

 

How many offers for Praet have we rejected for a player we didn't want on a lot of money that we will lose for free this summer? Its just bad squad management and this all falls within Rudkin's remit, that's why people look at him

I think the Iversen one was crazy as he had no transfer fee amortisation against him so 4m would have been pure profit.

 

Praet unless we got an offer which was more then his remaining transfer amortisation we were never selling.

 

People generally just see transfer fees a cash flow, its the effect of P&L which become more important with FFP issues.

[Jimmy]

5 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

I think the Iversen one was crazy as he had no transfer fee amortisation against him so 4m would have been pure profit.

 

Praet unless we got an offer which was more then his remaining transfer amortisation we were never selling.

 

People generally just see transfer fees a cash flow, its the effect of P&L which become more important with FFP issues.

its not just about amortisation of fees getting Praet's wages gone may have been the bigger benefit long term I'd need to look at what we were supposedly offered back then I know Torino weren't exactly being generous at the time either.

 

No doubt there are other examples over recent years too

[coolhandfox]

Just now, Jimmy said:

its not just about amortisation of fees getting Praet's wages gone may have been the bigger benefit long term I'd need to look at what we were supposedly offered back then I know Torino weren't exactly being generous at the time either.

 

No doubt there are other examples over recent years too

Without knowing what they were offering its hard to judge.

 

You also have to factor we would need a replacement, which is a fee and wages.