Who is in charge?

[BertFill]

2 minutes ago, filbertway said:

There's literally no point having a forum

Sometimes it feels like this is in fact the case!!

[MPH]

53 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

So you are suggesting then she has a say in the footballing matters? 

 

 

She did the first interview with Maresca . Rudkin was only invited to the second one..

[SamA27]

[sm1]

 

29 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

You are assuming on your expectation of how a business operates. No traditional business has a Director of Football who sits next to the defacto owner and gets an invite to his wedding whilst his CEO doesn't. 

Yeah, from just purely body language, Top seems closer to Rudkin then Whelan. With him also involved in Tops horse racing/Polo business, it's quite obvious they have a tight relationship and Top values Rudkins opinion. How does that make Whelan feel, who has the grander title but less clout with the hierarchy? Ultimately I think Top's in charge, but has many people whispering in his ears.

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, CosbehFox said:

So you are suggesting then she has a say in the footballing matters? 

Define footballing matters?

 

Does she get involved in setting up scouting teams? Unlikely

Does she talk to the manager directly about stuff happening on the pitch etc? Unlikely

 

Was she the clubs representative at premier league meetings? Yes

Has she got involved in transfer discussions? The same reporters people seem are happy to believe have said so. 

Is she involved in football budgets? (what we have to spend on players and wages) Yes of course, she's the CEO. 

Is she involved in discussing and agreeing on the overall direction of the club, including on the pitch? Yes, to a degree.

She Spearheaded the development of Seagrave.  

 

It wasn't long ago that people were adamant that she interviewed Maresa rather than Rudkin and that was used as a stick to beat him. 

 

She's the CEO of a football club and on its board. Of course, she has a say in footballing matters. It's how you want to define them. 

Edited 7 March by Babylon

[pkonline]

1 hour ago, Chrysalis said:

Not forgotten but I think there is clear differences, that was temporary on the way to higher riches, whilst the most recent breach is after we already got there and topped out our income.  The 2013 example was also done with clear purpose, whilst whats happened now is a bit odd, in that if we do fail (yes its not confirmed yet) we did so whilst crippling ourselves that final summer.  I think Vichai wouldnt have let that situation come about in the first place, but if it was there, he either would have stuck two fingers up at it, or made sure we didnt break it, not a weird middle ground.  Trying to comply when you have already failed is probably going to be pointless.

Disagree and I don't agree it's different. We'll never know how the club would be today if Khun Vichai hadn't passed away, and that's not really a point. You could argue that under him, we made some terrible decisions in 2016-2018 with regards to spending and wages that perhaps we've seen the effects these past 5 years.

[Chrysalis]

14 minutes ago, pkonline said:

Disagree and I don't agree it's different. We'll never know how the club would be today if Khun Vichai hadn't passed away, and that's not really a point. You could argue that under him, we made some terrible decisions in 2016-2018 with regards to spending and wages that perhaps we've seen the effects these past 5 years.

If its not really a point then dont bring it up, simples.

[CosbehFox]

48 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Define footballing matters?

 

Does she get involved in setting up scouting teams? Unlikely

Does she talk to the manager directly about stuff happening on the pitch etc? Unlikely

 

Was she the clubs representative at premier league meetings? Yes

Has she got involved in transfer discussions? The same reporters people seem are happy to believe have said so. 

Is she involved in football budgets? (what we have to spend on players and wages) Yes of course, she's the CEO. 

Is she involved in discussing and agreeing on the overall direction of the club, including on the pitch? Yes, to a degree.

She Spearheaded the development of Seagrave.  

 

It wasn't long ago that people were adamant that she interviewed Maresa rather than Rudkin and that was used as a stick to beat him. 

 

She's the CEO of a football club and on its board. Of course, she has a say in footballing matters. It's how you want to define them. 

Tommy G's exact words were 'She is the CEO an in charge of every single aspect of the club' 

 

Either way, it's an assumption that the club takes a traditional business approach - no traditional business has a role such as 'Director of Football'. I haven't argued that she isn't involved with footballing matters either. I just questioned the assertion she is in charge of every single aspect 

 

 

Edited 7 March by CosbehFox

[CosbehFox]

57 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

She did the first interview with Maresca . Rudkin was only invited to the second one..

Which is very representative of the lack of defined roles at the top echelon of the business. 

[MPH]

Just now, CosbehFox said:

Which is very representative of the lack of defined roles at the top echelon of the business. 

 yet it does prove she gets involved in  the football side of things to a certain degree..

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, sm1 said:

 

Yeah, from just purely body language, Top seems closer to Rudkin then Whelan. With him also involved in Tops horse racing/Polo business, it's quite obvious they have a tight relationship and Top values Rudkins opinion. How does that make Whelan feel, who has the grander title but less clout with the hierarchy? Ultimately I think Top's in charge, but has many people whispering in his ears.

The hierarchy which entrusted Whelan is gone. 

Edited 7 March by CosbehFox

[CosbehFox]

Just now, MPH said:

 yet it does prove she gets involved in  the football side of things to a certain degree..

And I didn't say otherwise 

[MPH]

Just now, CosbehFox said:

And I didn't say otherwise 

 

 

There isnt a need to be defensive, justs saying it shows involvement.

[Babylon]

49 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

Tommy G's exact words were 'She is the CEO an in charge of every single aspect of the club' 

 

Either way, it's an assumption that the club takes a traditional business approach - no traditional business has a role such as 'Director of Football'. I haven't argued that she isn't involved with footballing matters either. I just questioned the assertion she is in charge of every single aspect 

 

 

I think we're arguing semantics. She will be involved in everything to some degree. Does she tell someone to empty the bins? She'll employ the people who tell the people to empty the bins. If you know what I mean. The finger prints will be on everything. 

 

She might not be invovled generally in signings, but she agrees the budgets and funds, that others use to sign players. etc

[filbertway]

1 hour ago, BertFill said:

Sometimes it feels like this is in fact the case!!

Haha! I've wasted far too much of my life on here for it to be ripped away  

 

I'd say if to anyone that doesn't like reading opinions or speculation, then the non-fiction area of a library is the perfect spot to go for some reading.

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/mar/29/jackie-weaver-had-no-authority-after-all-investigation-finds

 

People continually applying logic to an operation akin to a parish council need to read this.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

2 hours ago, Babylon said:

Define footballing matters?

 

Does she get involved in setting up scouting teams? Unlikely

Does she talk to the manager directly about stuff happening on the pitch etc? Unlikely

 

Was she the clubs representative at premier league meetings? Yes

Has she got involved in transfer discussions? The same reporters people seem are happy to believe have said so. 

Is she involved in football budgets? (what we have to spend on players and wages) Yes of course, she's the CEO. 

Is she involved in discussing and agreeing on the overall direction of the club, including on the pitch? Yes, to a degree.

She Spearheaded the development of Seagrave.  

 

It wasn't long ago that people were adamant that she interviewed Maresa rather than Rudkin and that was used as a stick to beat him. 

 

She's the CEO of a football club and on its board. Of course, she has a say in footballing matters. It's how you want to define them. 

After all your posts saying we shouldn't speculate about Rudkin's responsibilities, this is hilairious. 

[Kilworthfox]

I don't understand the interest in the topic. 

 

You all seem to be speculating, so you can critique one or more individuals, for their specific responsibilities. 

 

Just use the job titles they have, no need for speculation then, It's black and white.

 

Yes there will be minor elements of Grey in some leaders roles, but that's normal, don't worry about that, do you really want to spend your time wondering what % responsibility some person has over something you can't, and will never control. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[iancognito]

For all the talk of King Power and Rudkin and who's to blame, don't forget the "Faceless 8" that sit there presumably advising and coming up with ideas. Operations Director? Strategy Director? General Counsel ? ?

 

When anyone talks about sacking the board - this is the board. I'd challenge anyone to define exactly what any of these people do.

 

 

[Babylon]

19 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

After all your posts saying we shouldn't speculate about Rudkin's responsibilities, this is hilairious. 

Please find one single post where I said you shouldn't speculate about his responsibilities. 

 

I know it's hard for you, but you just fail to grasp the basics. There is a massive difference between discussing someone's potential responsibilities and absolutely slating someone about certain things when you have ZERO idea of their involvement. Do you not get that?

 

Not only that, but they are also provable facts or literally listed in articles that people post as "proof" that she doesn't touch the football side. If you want to keep trumping up John Percy articles, I'll just do the same. He listed most of those things in his article. 

Edited 8 March by Babylon

[Foxes1]

15 hours ago, iancognito said:

For all the talk of King Power and Rudkin and who's to blame, don't forget the "Faceless 8" that sit there presumably advising and coming up with ideas. Operations Director? Strategy Director? General Counsel ? ?

 

When anyone talks about sacking the board - this is the board. I'd challenge anyone to define exactly what any of these people do.

 

 

Got more directors / senior managers than players

[Mickyblueeyes]

It worries me when people (albeit on this forum) suggest Whelan has little to do with the football side. I find that really hard to stomach if true. How can the CEO of the organisation have little or no impact on the actual product! 
 

The club is ran by KP people. Each member has a career made by one man. From Top to Rudkin to Whelan. That isn’t healthy. Internal promotions are part and parcel of every day business but to not have a critical voice for a business with a £350m turnover is just plain wrong. 
 

There is no one in charge. Well no one worth having. There is no critical thinking and with Top’s childish approach that criticism means disobedience, there never will be

[suffolk fox]

Simon Capper now works for Newcastle United not LCFC

[Gamble92]

15 hours ago, iancognito said:

For all the talk of King Power and Rudkin and who's to blame, don't forget the "Faceless 8" that sit there presumably advising and coming up with ideas. Operations Director? Strategy Director? General Counsel ? ?

 

When anyone talks about sacking the board - this is the board. I'd challenge anyone to define exactly what any of these people do.

 

 

Bunch of frauds 

[UniFox21]

Brighton have issues with Roma etc and their chief exec is already on the radio doing interviews about the events and the season in general.

 

Last we heard was top telling us we were in the wrong