The Enzo Thread

[Fox85]

53 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

We've been charged for breaching between 2020-23. Nothing we do from now until the end of June will affect that.

 

You're thinking of the potential new charge, which we can indeed avoid if we generate enough funds before 30 June. However that will have no impact of the current charge.

Ahhh right. Makes sense xheers

 

A decent poster- thank you for the clarification. Appreciate it.

[ClaphamFox]

 

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

For what it's worth, if you take a step outside of our Leicester City bubble and go and look through Chelsea social media and the Chelsea itks, nearly all of the talk is about Kieran Mckenna. 

 

The consensus is that most of the club want Mckenna and it's just Joe Shields, one of their directors of recruitment, advocating for Maresca. 

 

Obviously doesn't mean Enzo isn't still a very realistic prospect for them but it doesn't look like he's their first choice. 

 

This is a classic example of attentional bias. We obviously pay more attention to the Maresca rumours because they directly affect us. However, this distorts our perspective so we end up greatly overestimating the probability of him leaving.

 

 

[Dahnsouff]

Indeed, you take a look on ITFC and it’s a mix of anger, resignation and thankfulness.

[Spiritwalker]

If Enzo is travelling down to Chelsea for an interview I’m not sure 

where that leaves him if he doesn’t get the job.

[Onions]

11 hours ago, The whole world smiles said:

Anyone remember what the Enzo in/out poll was after the Plymouth game? I swear it was 80 percent plus that wanted him out. I was at the Bristol away game and the away support had turned on him bad. Why should managers show any loyalty when fans will turn on them at the first whiff of bad results and Owners will sack them In a heartbeat? Why should they be the only ones in the equation expected to show some loyalty?

I guess you don’t remember him turning against the fans within the first month, moaning about their reaction to the Centre Backs passing it between themselves all game. 
 

People bang in about his style of football, yet our best result was Southampton when we had less of the ball 🤷‍♂️

[KFS]

Just now, Spiritwalker said:

If Enzo is travelling down to Chelsea for an interview I’m not sure 

where that leaves him if he doesn’t get the job.

Right? I know they’d be a better prospect for him if he can sort them out, but **** me… proper Brenzo behaviour

[Dahnsouff]

Well he will be here obviously, but seriously he was never a long term manager, so here for a year and gone I assume.

[themightyfin]

1 hour ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

For a club like us, being asset stripped by someone like Chelsea is like winning the lottery, they overpay for pretty average players. They get the odd bargain, but that's because we have release clauses in our contracts, that's our own fault.

 

It's down to us as a club to always have the next Kante, Drinkwater, Chillwell, Fofana or Enzo ready and waiting to sign.

 

We should already be looking at replacements for players like KDH, Mads and Fatawu, all of these could be off within the next 12/24 months, hopefully for big money.

How is it our fault for putting release clauses into players contracts? 

 

Any clauses will be insisted upon by the agent/player upon signing the initialcontract or extension.

 

What's the alternative? You refuse and the player don't sign and runs down the contract and leaves for free or if he's a potential new signing refusing to put in a release clause means he just goes and signs for someone else . 

 

Release clauses are part and parcel of the majority of deals these days like ut or not so not really sure how you hold the club accountable for that? 

[Leicester_Loyal]

4 minutes ago, themightyfin said:

How is it our fault for putting release clauses into players contracts? 

 

Any clauses will be insisted upon by the agent/player upon signing the initialcontract or extension.

 

What's the alternative? You refuse and the player don't sign and runs down the contract and leaves for free or if he's a potential new signing refusing to put in a release clause means he just goes and signs for someone else . 

 

Release clauses are part and parcel of the majority of deals these days like ut or not so not really sure how you hold the club accountable for that? 

Well exactly, I'm not saying the club are wrong for doing so, I'm saying if we want the player that badly we agree to it, we can't then moan when Chelsea come along and 'asset strip' us, getting the player/manager for a cut down fee.

 

You either have the player and the clauses, or you don't.

 

Anytime we've sold a player to Chelsea, who didn't have a release clause, we've gotten fantastic money.

[Pliskin]

@Ric Flair was bang on the money re Enzo. Called it months ago that his time was done, and I think the majority of us agree. I think there’s a clear break in the relationship between Enzo and the board. So it’s better he leaves this way, and we get some compensation out of it, rather than us have to sack him. 

[themightyfin]

Erm....

4 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Well exactly, I'm not saying the club are wrong for doing so, I'm saying if we want the player that badly we agree to it, we can't then moan when Chelsea come along and 'asset strip' us, getting the player/manager for a cut down fee.

 

You either have the player and the clauses, or you don't.

 

Anytime we've sold a player to Chelsea, who didn't have a release clause, we've gotten fantastic money.

Erm......As far as back tracks go you had an awful attempt there and I'm sorry but you had an epic fail.

 

What You actually said was....

 

"They get the odd bargain, but that's because we have release clauses in our contracts, that's our own fault".

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Pliskin said:

@Ric Flair was bang on the money re Enzo. Called it months ago that his time was done, and I think the majority of us agree. I think there’s a clear break in the relationship between Enzo and the board. So it’s better he leaves this way, and we get some compensation out of it, rather than us have to sack him. 

Then why wouldn’t he leave when it was reported he was misled? It was a perfect opportunity, his stock would have been no lower, and he would be more appealing as a free agent.

[themightyfin]

2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Then why wouldn’t he leave when it was reported he was misled? It was a perfect opportunity, his stock would have been no lower, and he would be more appealing as a free agent.

With no income. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

3 minutes ago, themightyfin said:

Erm....

Erm......As far as back tracks go you had an awful attempt there and I'm sorry but you had an epic fail.

 

What You actually said was....

 

"They get the odd bargain, but that's because we have release clauses in our contracts, that's our own fault".

What are you on about epic fail

 

I'll repeat myself, anytime we've sold a player to Chelsea we've gotten fantastic money, they've got the odd bargain, which is when we've had a release clause in the contract (Kante), which LCFC themselves choose to put in there (regardless of whether Kante insisted on it).

 

Where is the epic fail or backtracking here?

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, themightyfin said:

With no income. 

Sorry? He wouldn’t walk away because he couldn’t pay his gas bill?

[ithuriel]

3 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Then why wouldn’t he leave when it was reported he was misled? It was a perfect opportunity, his stock would have been no lower, and he would be more appealing as a free agent.

Not going to look good on a CV, walking out of a job because and he gets no money.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, ithuriel said:

Not going to look good on a CV, walking out of a job because and he gets no money.

The why was on public record. 

[Pliskin]

5 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Then why wouldn’t he leave when it was reported he was misled? It was a perfect opportunity, his stock would have been no lower, and he would be more appealing as a free agent.

Leaving isn’t a good look. You’d rather be sacked or poached. Not that I’m saying Enzo would actively seek to be sacked… he appears to be a passionate bloke, so would want to prove his worth on the pitch, which he’s largely done. But I imagine January pissed him off, so if a better opportunity comes along he’s likely to take it.

[ithuriel]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

The why was on public record. 

Doesn't matter, no employer wants an employee who just quits  unless they have a long history of winning, he is not Pep or klippety Klopp

 

[HybridFox]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

 

im more worried about him taking Fatawu! KDH will likely be gone anyway..

We've got the option to buy on Fatawu. Can't poach unless he refuses of course 

[Gamble92]

15 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

@Ric Flair was bang on the money re Enzo. Called it months ago that his time was done, and I think the majority of us agree. I think there’s a clear break in the relationship between Enzo and the board. So it’s better he leaves this way, and we get some compensation out of it, rather than us have to sack him. 

Agree with this, and my only worry comes in the potential new manager still being a follower of this philosophy i.e Martin. 

 

But you have to worry if this is the case. If our board can't keep good relations with a manager who's just won the league after the countless errors they've made the last few years. They will only keep getting away with it for so long. 

[MPH]

17 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

@Ric Flair was bang on the money re Enzo. Called it months ago that his time was done, and I think the majority of us agree. I think there’s a clear break in the relationship between Enzo and the board. So it’s better he leaves this way, and we get some compensation out of it, rather than us have to sack him. 

 

 

Think we are ina similar position as we were with Rodgers - i dont think we can afford to sack him!

[Daggers]

15 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

@Ric Flair was bang on the money re Enzo. Called it months ago that his time was done, and I think the majority of us agree. I think there’s a clear break in the relationship between Enzo and the board. So it’s better he leaves this way, and we get some compensation out of it, rather than us have to sack him. 

If there’s a break with the board and I’d argue there isn’t, there’s a sense he might feel misled and unsupported, why would he leave to go to a club where the last manager was actively undermined and instructed on how to manage?

 

There’s not a hope in hell Maresca would have some non-specialist dictate how to avoid suffering injuries. 

[ClaphamFox]

The Evening Standard is reporting that there has been a lot of money placed on Mourinho in the past few hours...

[Pliskin]

1 minute ago, Daggers said:

If there’s a break with the board and I’d argue there isn’t, there’s a sense he might feel misled and unsupported, why would he leave to go to a club where the last manager was actively undermined and instructed on how to manage?

 

There’s not a hope in hell Maresca would have some non-specialist dictate how to avoid suffering injuries. 

Football makes no sense, but Chelsea have an abundance of what we don’t, cash and more cash. 
 

I think you’re dead right when you say he’s been mislead, he had, he more or less admitted this to the media, as did Rodgers before him. 
 

This lack of transparency between the board and the management staff is absurd, this has to be resolved, it’s going to taint any relationship between the manager and their bosses.