Chrysalis

We need a reset really, new young motivated squad cheap to build and on very low wages, the ffotball ideology obviously needs to go as well, which will upset some people, but its the reality. From here we reset our financial base back to within our status as a club, and once thats done providing we at least a mid table championship team, we will still be attractive once thats done as we are the 6th most successful English club in recent times. So will be a bigger pulling power for the best lower league players over stoke etc.

Our leaders acting like we beaten football and made it up there as a club, building Seagrave so soon is kind of indicative of that as well. I guess when we posted those world record profits it must have felt like we had money to burn whenever we want and we could do whatever we want without repercussion moving forward.

Yeah it gets even worse when you consider that.

Its good Whelan has finally put her name to a statement. But the comment seems to indicate an element of delusion, if anything I felt our 8th place finish masked the problems emerging, by the start of the season the football was well into its decline, Rodgers was already almost done. Then the club from this statement seem to think adding standing still on the squad on top of that, they were expecting another 5th-8th place finish.

When I looked at their figures posted a few weeks back they were significantly more healthy than ours. From what I remember much lower wages, and a higher amount of income that wasnt reliant on EPL TV money. Of course that doesnt mean everything will be hunky dory for them, but I remember posting an opinion at the time they were looking the safest financially out of the 3 relegated clubs. -- I read an interview from the new CEO of Manchester United, he made the point that when you have success on the pitch, as a CEO, COO whatever you have to take advantage of that and push up off the field revenues, something I remain frustrated to this day we failed to do. He also is an indicator CEO's play a big role in player recruitment and contracts (at least at some clubs).

9 months later and people are still saying it.

They got the freedom to shoot on sight which is harder to defend against as its unpredictable, and puts less pressure on the player to get it right, as it doesnt need to be a walk it in the net goal.

Ipswich shoot on sight policy, getting forward quickly, works so well for them. Saints defending reminds me of us, the Ipswich scorer had enough time to miss the kick, recompose himself and shoot again unchallenged. I also dont think enough happened in the game for that time added on, time added on this season is so inconsistent.

I think large parts of the City are "dump" material, but there is a few spots that look alright. On the City Centre, its one of the worst City Centre's I have seen. The pedestrianisation without trams is a bizarre choice, lots of dead zones, buses going down church gate which was one of a few nice roads I liked walking down, there is a few streets or spots in the centre that are nice, but there is a lot of dross that floods it out. The future I think inevitably is it becomes a combination of student accommodation and night life. Shopping will move more and more out of the city. The shires aka highcross is that anomaly which will delay this for several years. That getting built I think has proven critical. Bear mind the city is one of the poorest in the entire country so how things are wont be that much of a surprise. Its location is also industrial primed, we are the furthest city in the country from a coast. I consider one failure to not take advantage of location to make us much more of a hub for distribution, which according to my dad Leicester used to be massive for, especially on scudamore road.

I kind of remember Whelan getting some good goals when she joined as well as playing some positive football and I do feel she played a big part in our momentum shift as an early Kirk signing. So I feel "ok" is a harsh label.

It always been a part of it. Not only that, but by design for the benefit of the status quo. Unless you think its possible to do things like % of turnover for wages or permitted losses without looking at income. Every single variant of FFP they keep tinkering with does not change a key component, "club income". So to clarify, I mean an FFP like other sports do that take's absolutely no account of income. A FFP that allows Luton in the EPL to spend the same as Liverpool in the EPL. (But it would work downwards not upwards, significantly cut the spending of the big clubs to levels that are reasonable for the entire division).

I think I disagree, I think its important an owner has enough interest he is still sticking his nose in and making sure the club is run well, achieves its goals etc. An owner should be attending games regularly as an example as well. When you go down the road of "leaving it to others", it allows situations like "I have faith in my people" (when they doing a bad job) and for rots to set in whilst the disinterest continues.

Why cant they do the right thing, completely remove turnover from the financial rules. Many other sports implement flat caps on spending successfully, but this sport is obsessed with "turnover".

Everyone suddenly likes him for a week then I guess?

Yep.

Its a lazy paragraph in the match programme, as if match attending fans are all that need to be pleased and it will fool those who have a soft touch for him. It addresses people who might be concerned the club would go into admin or something, I dont have that concern anyway, I know KP wouldnt let that happen, but it doesnt address or even acknowledge the shambolic management of the club.

That is true but my point is, is the financial position bad when there is a sugar daddy ensuring the viability of the company. Its a bit like saying a company owned by a billionaire losing 1 million a year is in financial danger when its a pet project and the 1 million is pocket money to the owner. Thats a problem with FFP, its likely making certain financial situations seem like some sort of disaster when without FFP it would just be business as normal. In a unhindered business world, many companies routinely make losses now days. As an example I never felt Chelsea were at any kind of risk under Roman.

Won every game bar one I havent watched, the ones I have missed I have been told we have had our best performances and average goals scored is between 3 and 4 goals.

He is an obvious candidate, local and did an amazing turn around for forest. But of course he needs to know the true conditions he is working under and not have footballing decisions interfered with.

I dont for that interview, but I do remember on east midlands news, whenever Top was interviewed in the Sven season it felt like we had an 8 year old running things.

For some reason people seem to think club owners dont do anything, and are just a face of the club, when history has shown at many clubs this isnt the case, so bizarre. Are people also saying he has no responsibility for the FA cup win (to be consistent) they keep thanking him for?

You dont have to do what your advisors say, they there to advise not run the club, and does he have different advisors to Vichai had? Does he have any at all? Who are they?

Wasnt allowed to protest against Rodgers (but Smith was fair game) and Top will likely also be protected, I wonder how much fans were patting him on the back in that Chelsea away game.

Its recoverable by the owner writing it off?

I dont think we should be sacking him right now, but I also think it is moot, as he wont be manager next season for the club. He is a manager that requires relentless funding to support his football ideology, and our owner is now demonstrating he wont go down that route with his half in half out approach to FFP. Dean Smith ironically is exactly the sort of manager we need, back to basics, and getting the best out of players befitting to the club, I have got news for you, and I do apologise for the shock, we are not a Manchester City, Barcelona or Real Madrid. If we are promoted he will be gone by Christmas (or dead man walking Rodgers style). You can quote this post then if I am wrong. Your post really puts people in a lose lose, you even said yourself if anyone dared muttering it when we was winning games, they would have been called out for it, but if they waited until the results turned you calling out for it. So when are people allowed to say they have had enough of Enzo?