Ruud van Nistelrooy - New Manager - Official

[Foxin_Mad]

3 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Under your criteria rather than break the cartel only clubs with previous honours or famous ex players should be in the top division. Palace have never won anything but could possibly win the cup. 

Im not saying that but what I am saying is that they generate more interest, no one is interested in watching Brentford vs Bournemouth, its not really a spectacle. Maybe it becomes one one day. 

 

What the Premier League is doing with PSR is basically fixing the league with these teams in it, they will never ever go down if the current structure remains. 

 

They originally got there under the merits of the pyramid system which is fair enough, they are kept there by Sky Sports money.  The league is really broken. 

 

I don't think there is an opportunity for this kind of thing to happen again under the current structure. 

 

I would be immensely surprised if Leeds stay up or if we ever do again under the current set up. Obviously a lot of this is due to our own inept management as we should have been part of this closed shop. 

[urban.spaceman]

48 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

Thing is I agree with this but we are now 2/3 years on and the club hasn't learned, they are still doing the same things with the same people.  Thats my problem.

Completely agree. Rudkin and Whelan still being in their posts is utterly reprehensible. PSR destroyed us, they failed to deal with it and have been chasing their tails ever since. 

 

48 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

I absolutely agree the league is corrupt and the rules are stupid, they are designed to stop clubs challenging the big six cartel. 

Unfortunately there is a complete lack of awareness or even reticence to this fact. Nobody cares if it’s not happening to their club, 
 

What should be happening, if there’s going to be any change in the sport, is people like @Foxes_Trust and national fan groups campaigning on and spreading awareness of the broadcasting landscape; how it is ripping off consumers by forcing them to subscribe to three separate broadcasters, making us pay three times the amount our peers abroad do for access to only 52% of the product. It’s literally what upholds the current system - and possibly breaks competition law. 

 

Remove the “my club” tribal aspect and inform people about the this absurd extortion. 

Edited yesterday at 13:41 by urban.spaceman

[Dan]

2 hours ago, FrankieADZ said:

hate him even more

I just cannot even be arsed to go into the intricacies of this any more. The worst run club possibly in the country. There is no point bothering until we've forced these vile people out of the club, preferably country.

[urban.spaceman]

30 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

What story that would be!

I’m off down the bookies. 

[Foxdiamond]

2 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

Im not saying that but what I am saying is that they generate more interest, no one is interested in watching Brentford vs Bournemouth, its not really a spectacle. Maybe it becomes one one day. 

 

What the Premier League is doing with PSR is basically fixing the league with these teams in it, they will never ever go down if the current structure remains. 

 

They originally got there under the merits of the pyramid system which is fair enough, they are kept there by Sky Sports money.  The league is really broken. 

 

I don't think there is an opportunity for this kind of thing to happen again under the current structure. 

 

I would be immensely surprised if Leeds stay up or if we ever do again under the current set up. Obviously a lot of this is due to our own inept management as we should have been part of this closed shop. 

On any given day a match between two unfancied teams can be more of a spectacle than two of the giants. Agree the system has made the league unhealthy 

[filbertway]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

 

 

The decision making 4-5 years ago was within the confines of entirely different rules. When the PSR threshold tightened in 2020/21/22 we’d been spending money within a system - that had already restricted our earnings and spending power - that we’d developed a strategy to develop and grow. And it was working. Top 3 for most of 2 seasons, League Cup semi finalists, FA Cup winners, Europa Conference League semi finalists. We’d achieved success and were growing, so had been spending - albeit poorly - within that framework.

 

Before the rules changed, we’d already “broken” them. (Turns out, we didn’t) The squad we’d built to break into the top 5, win trophies and compete in the top end of Europe, became a millstone around our neck because not only couldn’t we sell them to any other clubs - who now couldn’t spend as much money either - we also couldn’t replace any of them like-for-like. 

 

These are the same rules that the Premier League and EFL are both on record as stating they’re poorly written. BOTH leagues have explicitly and repeatedly broken their OWN RULES while at the same time failing to prove we’ve broken any of theirs. 

 

Blame the club all you want - they (especially Rudkin) have a LOT to answer for. 

 

But I’m sick of people pretending that we’re not dealing with hostile, incompetent and clearly corrupt leagues. 

We were literally spending more money on salaries than we were earning the year we went down? I don't even understand your point.

 

Do you want Top to run up massive debts to keep amplifying Rudkins failings?

 

You've always had felt this was unfair (i assume you think it's fairer to let owners run up debts against clubs before bailing on them) but it's the same for everyone. We didn't have to offer massive ridiculous money to players. We did so because we are ran terribly.

 

The squad that finished top 5 was essentially the brilliance the Walsh and Macia's recruitment. The moment Rodgers came in and Rudkin opted to sack Macia so Congerton could join was the start of the downfall. Rudkin and Top then allowed Rodgers to spend far more money than was sensible and we're now paying the price for those decisions made 4/5 years ago.

 

Nothing to do with the same rules that every club has to follow being implemented.

 

If you take a step back and look at what you keep saying. You want all clubs to be able to spend beyond their means and risk their future, it's odd to me. Not having PSR would just see the average wage of players like Vesty be around 120k pw instead of the mental 80k that it is now.

[Dan]

1 hour ago, OnlyOneCity said:

Who was DOF when we won the league?

Time has proven it was in spite of. 

[Dan]

1 hour ago, Foxdiamond said:

I agree that PSR helps the cartel. Can't agree with Bournemouth Brentford comment. There are football snobs out there that feel the same way about clubs like Leicester. People should broaden their horizons otherwise it increases the obsession with the usual suspects. Bit like that Spurs fan when we were going for the title. " Leicester are nobodies"

Leicester in theory should be nobodies compared to Spurs. You don't think like that idiot Spurs fan, but you would at least have to acknowledge how a smaller club had outperformed you.

 

We are bigger than these clubs - for now. Wouldn't surprise me if in ten years Brighton are considered to be a bigger club than us.

[Foxin_Mad]

13 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

On any given day a match between two unfancied teams can be more of a spectacle than two of the giants. Agree the system has made the league unhealthy 

It can be but the way football is at present it isnt, Ive watched some absolute rubbish in the Premier League this year, obviously a lot of it has been us! However, very few games have made me think that was entertaining. Actually some of the championship games despite being technically inferior are better value for money. I think there is always going to be a bit more excitement and anticipation over say Sheffield Wed vs Sheffield Utd as a fixture, rightly or wrongly it may or may not deliver, like wise you may stumble upon Bournemouth vs Brentford and find it a good watch, its just not traditionally what the armchair fan is looking for. Actually Brentford are quite a good side to watch. 

[Foxdiamond]

6 minutes ago, Dan said:

Leicester in theory should be nobodies compared to Spurs. You don't think like that idiot Spurs fan, but you would at least have to acknowledge how a smaller club had outperformed you.

 

We are bigger than these clubs - for now. Wouldn't surprise me if in ten years Brighton are considered to be a bigger club than us.

I remember the Damned United film in the scene where Brian Clough is aghast at Peter Taylor going to the football backwater of Brighton. Times change as Brighton is billed as London By The Sea and Tony Bloom's investment. 

[Foxdiamond]

4 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

It can be but the way football is at present it isnt, Ive watched some absolute rubbish in the Premier League this year, obviously a lot of it has been us! However, very few games have made me think that was entertaining. Actually some of the championship games despite being technically inferior are better value for money. I think there is always going to be a bit more excitement and anticipation over say Sheffield Wed vs Sheffield Utd as a fixture, rightly or wrongly it may or may not deliver, like wise you may stumble upon Bournemouth vs Brentford and find it a good watch, its just not traditionally what the armchair fan is looking for. Actually Brentford are quite a good side to watch. 

Agreed about Brentford. The shame is that the gap between the finances between the two top divisions is too vast. I think the armchair fan needs to open the mind though I grant you a Sheffield derby for example is an attraction even if both clubs were in the third tier.

[Jattdogg]

Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

 

Our directors/owners have 0 game right now.

[Aleksz]

Surely gardening leave until the next PSR/financial period is the play here? Guess you don’t really see it much in the modern game but don’t see how that’s not the solution?

[urban.spaceman]

44 minutes ago, filbertway said:

We were literally spending more money on salaries than we were earning the year we went down? I don't even understand your point.

Our revenue was down because of COVID (which happened to everyone else) and our failure to qualify for the Champions League. Before the rule change, it wouldn’t have mattered,

 

44 minutes ago, filbertway said:

 

Do you want Top to run up massive debts to keep amplifying Rudkins failings?

No. 

 

44 minutes ago, filbertway said:

You've always had felt this was unfair

Not only am I saying that the rules are unfair on EVERY non “big six” club, others are saying it too. The PREMIER LEAGUE themselves admitted their rules were poorly written. Both the Premier League and the EFL REPEATEDLY broke their own rules in pursuing us while failing pretty publicly to prove that we’d broken any of theirs.

 

We’re talking about a league that stated in the last legal case we won against them that clubs should be held accountable as close to the season the alleged breaches occurred in as possible. The same league that took 10 years to even START investigating Manchester City, 5 years before finally bringing charges, and 2 years after that still haven’t concluded proceedings. Failures over a decade and a half that have had a direct impact on us. 

 

The same league that gives PSR advantages and allowances to Manchester United and Chelsea that aren’t privy to anyone else then try to claim with a straight face that Leicester tried to gain an unfair advantage in a season in which they were relegated. 

 

The rules are explicitly unfair and have been for decades, and no other club has been restricted in by them as much as us.

 

44 minutes ago, filbertway said:

(i assume you think it's fairer to let owners run up debts against clubs before bailing on them)

No. 

44 minutes ago, filbertway said:

but it's the same for everyone.

It’s not. See above. 

 

44 minutes ago, filbertway said:

We didn't have to offer massive ridiculous money to players. We did so because we are ran terribly.

That’s what it took to be ambitious and challenge at the top of the table at the time and which proved to be successful until the rules were tightened. 

 

44 minutes ago, filbertway said:

 

The squad that finished top 5 was essentially the brilliance the Walsh and Macia's recruitment. The moment Rodgers came in and Rudkin opted to sack Macia so Congerton could join was the start of the downfall. Rudkin and Top then allowed Rodgers to spend far more money than was sensible

I agree. 

 

44 minutes ago, filbertway said:

and we're now paying the price for those decisions made 4/5 years ago.

Partly. 

 

44 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Nothing to do with the same rules that every club has to follow being implemented.

Everything to do with rules that some clubs have to follow being implemented in different ways to different clubs. 

 

44 minutes ago, filbertway said:

 

If you take a step back and look at what you keep saying. You want all clubs to be able to spend beyond their means and risk their future, it's odd to me.

I have not said that. The following was in a club statement in March 2024 after we won one of the panels against the EFL.

 

“We reaffirm the Club’s position that we will continue to fight for the right of Leicester City and all clubs to pursue their ambitions, particularly where these have been reasonably and fairly established through sustained sporting achievement.”

 

That’s pretty much my belief.

 

PSR, they claimed, is designed to prevent irresponsible owners loading clubs with debt then leaving them.

 

We have a clear history of sustained sporting achievement under an ownership with a proven track record of investment in the club, its infrastructure and the community. If a club not only can’t progress after fairly winning the league, an FA Cup, challenging in Europe AND building a world class training facility at the same time, because of rules “designed” to prevent clubs going under from owners that do the opposite, then there’s something wrong with those rules. 

 

44 minutes ago, filbertway said:

 

Not having PSR would just see the average wage of players like Vesty be around 120k pw instead of the mental 80k that it is now.

I agree that he’s on an outrageous amount. I’ve said repeatedly the club have made appalling signings and wage decisions. 

 

All I’ve ever wanted is the right to fair competition. We have not had that. 

Edited yesterday at 14:28 by urban.spaceman

[inckley fox]

1 hour ago, Skidmark said:

Is there any justification for keeping him? 

• A squad not of his making. 
• Some glimpses of decent football in the past few weeks.
• Having a pair to be able to get rid of Vardy, Winks, Ndidi etc.
• Will attract significant talent to the club because of his status, more so than Martin and Röhl.
• Has previous working with young players. 
• Would cost too much to get rid of him.
• He's been able to analyse the squad since December and is in the best position to sort out who stays and who leaves.
• Can deal with tricky situations e.g. Winks. 

I'm not saying I'd want him here, but I see a few reasons why it might be in our best interests to keep him. A season in the Championship may be the making of a good coach. 

 

I've spent all this time saying that nobody can come up with a coherent argument for keeping him, and you've gone and done about as good a job as anyone conceivably could.

 

However, I reckon you'd pick the same holes in it as I would. I'll go through it point by point anyway.

 

1. Not having a 'squad of his making' is not a justification for going with a manager. That's the case with literally every new manager, so the same thing we can say in his defence (albeit with the mighty caveat that in Ruud's case he's shown himself to be an exceptionally poor fit for the squad) can be said as, if not more, convincingly about any of the alternatives.

 

2. Even over the past two games, I've not seen anything which would make me stick with the boss. He rode his luck in one game and deservedly lost in the other, which was the latest installment in an all-time record for being awful.

 

3. Yes, he can probably get rid of Vardy, Ndidi, though perhaps it won't be so easy with Winks. In the case of the first two, I'm not sure they've actually been among our main offenders this year (off the top of my head, Faes, Winks, Justin, Kristiansen, Soumare, Skipp, Reid would be among those higher up the list). But yes, it'd help to clear the decks - though again, that applies to literally any of the alternatives to Ruud. Personally, I wouldn't entrust someone whose judgement has been as questionable as this manager's with a squad overhaul.

 

4. Will Ruud be such a draw for potential signings after this season, compared to bright up-and-coming bosses? I'm not so positive. These players don't look all that bothered about playing for him, and I imagine most of our targets will be less interested in meeting Ruud than our chairman, or maybe Woyo, apparently was. They'll be more interested in actually doing well.

 

5. Yes, he has worked with young players in the past. It's not really what he's done here, though, in spite of the recent debuts. We've seen attacking threes of Vardy, Ayew and Reid while Alves is out on loan, Monga is still training with the kids, and Facundo and Mavididi are benched. And I think, once again, there are alternatives out there with better records at bringing on youngsters than Ruud (or Dyche or, up to now, Rohl, for that matter).

 

6. If it's too expensive to fire him, then that's pretty much the end of the discussion! I've got no interest in bankrupting the club. However it would also be mind-blowingly dim, even by their standards, to appoint an inexperienced boss to a relegation fight without a clause. Maybe they didn't, and if we have to keep him then we have to keep him. But if we don't, then we shouldn't.

 

7. He has indeed had all of that time to look at the squad, but still drops Okoli for Faes after a decent performance, still picks Reid, still persists with Soumare. His responses to our performances, like his slowness in coming up with anything approaching a new idea to arrest our decline, have been baffling. His decision to prioritise defensive stability - given his dire track record for defensive stability and the fact that our only positive outfield attributes had previously been attacking ones - just about sums him up.

 

8. I don't think he has sorted out those problems, including the one with Winks. That's why we keep hearing about them! If standards are poor at a club, you do have to wonder why you see so many of those whose standards are visibly too low in the line-up.

 

 

[Wink84]

I want him to be sacked now with a club statement that they are looking at changing the current structure at the club and will have a caretaker until the summer. We get rid of a rotten egg and give us hope that the club will make the necessary changes to improve us on and off the pitch after the psr disasters and relegation after what should have been a change to cement ourselves as an elite Premier league club instead of going back to the yoyo club we were previously. 

[RedSoxUK]

As it gone yet or wot?

[Foxin_Mad]

11 minutes ago, Wink84 said:

I want him to be sacked now with a club statement that they are looking at changing the current structure at the club and will have a caretaker until the summer. We get rid of a rotten egg and give us hope that the club will make the necessary changes to improve us on and off the pitch after the psr disasters and relegation after what should have been a change to cement ourselves as an elite Premier league club instead of going back to the yoyo club we were previously. 

The rotten eggs are Top and Rudders

 

Shortly to Announce Russell Martin

[urban.spaceman]

11 minutes ago, RedSoxUK said:

As it gone yet or wot?

Apparently we can’t sack him because of PSR so would have to wait until July 1st.

 

Presumably they’ll announce it at the Open Top Bus parade to celebrate Ward’s contract renewal. 

[jayfox26]

1 hour ago, Dan said:

I just cannot even be arsed to go into the intricacies of this any more. The worst run club possibly in the country. There is no point bothering until we've forced these vile people out of the club, preferably country.

It's absolutely sickening and when you think we've hit rock bottom, Top and his board of clowns manage somehow continue to make things worse. If our club was a dog, it would have been put down years ago! 

[HankMarvin]

1 minute ago, jayfox26 said:

It's absolutely sickening and when you think we've hit rock bottom, Top and his board of clowns manage somehow continue to make things worse. If our club was a dog, it would have been put down years ago! 

But whilst the majority of fans continue to attend and clap, the “dog” is eating well and running around.

[jayfox26]

2 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

But whilst the majority of fans continue to attend and clap, the “dog” is eating well and running around.

Yeh don't get me started on that. This is the first season I've not been to a game (except covid) for nearly 30 years. I won't be going again anytime soon unless major changes are made at the club. Not worth my time or money! 

[Ian S]

58 minutes ago, Aleksz said:

Surely gardening leave until the next PSR/financial period is the play here? Guess you don’t really see it much in the modern game but don’t see how that’s not the solution?

Spot on, I have mentioned it before, gardening leave and show him the door, other clubs have done it.

[winteriscoming]

How arrogant we must be to think that we don’t need to put a relegation clause in his contract? Or are we that stupid? 
Prob a bit of both. 

[Kitchandro]

Are we really gonna have this guy in charge of the Forest match when he doesn’t care at all?
 

We could ruin their season purely with a new manager bounce. Even if that manager is Andy King in a caretaker role. He’d have Vardy on side at least.

 

But no, let’s get humiliated there again, why not.