inckley fox

You obviously see things in him that I've never seen. And don't see things in Vardy that I do.

I don't blame Ruud for where we are, and I didn't really blame Cooper either. The financial mess discouraged many of our top summer targets or priced them out of our range, and what we ended up getting wasn't anywhere near enough, unsurprisingly. I felt he had to go but mainly because fans and players alike had made his position untenable. My biggest gripe with Ruud is the absence of new ideas - in terms of personnel or shape or style - which you and others have indicated.

I think she went out of her way throughout her life to say that her problems were a result of her own decisions and she wasn't led astray by others. There are quite a few interviews where she stressed that she wasn't a powerless victim and had control over her destiny. Perhaps she was kidding herself, but personally I found it very refreshing that she took responsibility for her actions when it would have been very easy to point fingers. And she was seriously underrated. The original 'Sister Morphine' is great, but stuff like 'Why do you do it' / 'Lucy Jordan' / 'Strange Weather' and then latter day cuts like 'Vagabond Ways', 'Incarceration', 'City of Quartz', 'Last Song' and the Nick Cave collaborations are all brilliant.

Some really good points. When we went down, there were lots of voices of caution that year. Even from the off, some raised eyebrows at the sort of business we were doing - not necessarily the amounts spent, but certainly the sense that we were bringing in players who might have been on our wish list if we stayed up (e.g. Coady, and we'd also been linked to Winks in the past). And then there was the style of play, which Enzo insisted would never change and yet, it seemed, would have to be seriously tweaked at times at a higher level. Enzo is a competent manager so he may well have adapted more than he was letting on, but I felt at the time that our dealings back then were designed to secure a quick return, and didn't seem to be bringing in the breadth of options to allow us to restructure long-term. I didn't see the plan for what happened when we actually got up with Faes and Vesty as CBs, or Vardy still up top. When the winter came and talk of deductions, my thought was that any promotion would be followed by heavy restrictions on a squad that for the most part went down previously, and relegation was a near-certainty. Plenty on here felt that this was a necessary evil financially (I still don't entirely see why if we were staying compliant for that season, though they may have been right), but at that stage I'd have preferred us to avoid the throwaway top flight season. Others disagreed, of course, but it seemed the club had always been heading down that route. They've made missteps, even with that being the grand plan: At least one managerial appointment, the Skipp and Okoli signings etc. But at this stage I'd prefer them not to prolong the cycle you speak of with further short-term fixes. I'd have liked to see one or two longer term ones, but there you go! I don't think Forest's strategy was the way to go. They've ridden a great deal of luck and if PSR restrictions remain tough, I think we'll see other clubs try what they've done and get it badly wrong. At this stage it's best to get our house in order - including that reset in the boardroom and beyond - and then rebuild properly, from a more sound financial footing, and with longer-term outcomes at the forefront. As for whether I have faith in that happening, well...

I guess the idea here is to simplify the messaging ahead of any protests so that everyone can be on the same page. If the aim is to 'go strong', then 'KP Out' is the obvious one, but far too many people are going to think twice before getting behind that - rightly or wrongly. They'll point out how good they've been for us on balance in comparison to past owners, and to owners elsewhere. You'll hear 'Yes they took a risk, but so does every other club - it's the modern game to blame, not them'. The protest will fall flat. You saw people losing interest just because we won a game last week, so it's not as if the movement is in any way focused. The alternative, and the one which people would be more comfortable in getting behind is 'Rudkin Out', of course. But I just feel it could be rather misguided. If those ITK have been right where they've said that he's basically one of the only footballing voices in the boardroom who has to run around doing his best to do Top's bidding, and who is effectively set up to shield the owner from some of the flak, then directing it all at him gives Top an easy way out without actually changing anything problematic. While the aforementioned could all be true of JR and he could still - as most of us suspect - be pretty useless as a DoF, making a protest about him may well backfire, because we simply don't know the dynamics at play. A large reason for Rudkin becoming the scapegoat in the first place is that people didn't want to direct their gripes at owners that they were very fond of. It wasn't 100% well-reasoned. All sorts of things we hold the DoF responsible for (and it's no exaggeration to say that he's been blamed for everything on here this week from recruitment to wage structure to team selection) will have very little to do with him. People might get on board with the messaging, but if the argument is fundamentally flawed and counterproductive, would it be worth it? There are plenty of very convincing voices on here who felt sure that everything would be hunky dory the moment Congerton went, or Rodgers went, or Cooper went. Then there's Rudkin. And now we're moving on to Ruud. What we know is that stuff has been badly done for some time, but part of the confusion is - and always has been - that we're not sure how, nor who is responsible. What if - and it's a serious possibility - Rudkin is indeed not up to scratch, but is the closest any of the higher-ups come to being competent in a footballing sense? What's Top going to learn from that sort of protest? And if you doubt that there's any serious danger of that being the case, just look at how people have dismissed people on here who have said 'hang on a minute, perhaps that isn't Rudkin's fault?' Bearing in mind we're all annoyed and all looking for major change, it doesn't bode well if people are too busy pumping their chests and yelling 'I want blood!' to be willing to respond to those points without accusing people of being Rudkin in disguise, or just boring. Personally I'd keep any co-ordinated message simple, and in line with what little we have in common on the matter: People want change in the form of a substantial reset which we can see and hear. Beyond that, pockets of people can call for Top or call for Rudkin as they choose. But that's not concretely what the protest is about. If it's about the former, it'll fall flat. If it's about the latter, it may well be pointless. If, like me, you suspect that Rudkin would be one of many casualties if the necessary restructuring ever too place, then the best way of seeing the right changes and the right people moved on won't be to (a) alienate fans who might be willing to protest by aiming it at Top or (b) to direct the protest at people who aren't the main ones to blame, which might be the case if it's aimed at Rudkin.

As bad as our finances were, we still managed to spend huge sums on players we didn't really need. And while the finances may be better now, I still think we're roughly mid-table for PL wages, unless I'm mistaken. So the situations aren't entirely dissimilar. If we spend big on PL cast-offs when we go down and build a side around players who took us down, then any promotion with that side would be as futile as it was this time round. We'd be giving ourselves too much to do in terms of replacing substandard players in a short window of time, and with limited resources. I disagree that Enzo built good foundations, and that the gamble on splashing out for an instant return paid off. Much of the spending was unhelpful and left us with too much work to do this summer (needing two first choice CBs, a CM, to make the Fatawu deal permanent and sign a new starting striker was way beyond our resources). Even the playing style was going to need seriously looking at. We were sold a dream that we could be a budding Manchester City, play glorious football and storm the league with a squad packed with PL talent, but no thought was given to what came next. While I have no gripes about the manager himself, who did exactly what he was brought in to do, the Maresca era is part of the problem rather than an indication of how wonderful things are when Top gets it right. Bearing in mind that, as you say elsewhere, we could well evade punishment for a hefty spend last season, doesn't it also indicate that we could have been a bit more conservative in our spending; recruited, assembled and developed players that other clubs couldn't have attracted on lower wages, and in doing so given ourselves a serious long-term project? It might have taken an extra year or two, but if - as some believe - we could yet skirt PSR for last year then I see no reason why instant promotion was as essential as you've suggested at times. At some point we're going to have to build the squad more thoroughly and more equitably, and success might not be immediate. For the most part, what we've done is to kick the problem a couple of years down the line.

If that is the case, then it would at least be nice if this time they gave some thought to what comes next. I'd prefer us to properly build and restructure over several years in the FLC than to see more quick fixes.

He's predictably dire at this level and always has been. The only thing I can say in his favour is that none of the other three defenders who participated in that shambles will ever be regulars in a PL side that avoids relegation, so as bad as he is, at least it's not embarrassing when you have the likes of Vestergard for company. That's how bad they all are. And my thoughts on the two centre mids are frankly unprintable in the modern era.

Either way, he was a free. If you wanted to upgrade on Mavididi, you probably needed to spend. We didn't. The fact that he got in ahead of Mavididi, and still does, is either a poor reflection on our long-term planning when we signed Stephy, which would be a tad harsh, or a damning reflection on our lack of resources to make the squad PL ready. Whatever, it shows that two managers agree that Mavididi isn't good enough at this level, and our principal alternative was an ageing free transfer when we needed something more promising.

Well, I can't argue with that! The only thing I'd add is that our dire CM performances all season long - Winks, Soumare both gutless and missing in action more often than not - suggest that we needed a more combative presence in that position. Skipp was just, it seems, a poor choice.

We had no money for new first choice wingers. The hope was that Mavididi and Fatawu would step up, and therefore we invested in competent cover players rather than replacements. But neither adapted well initially, Fatawu got injured, now Mavididi continues to struggle. They've both offered enough at times to suggest that they were adequate cover but neither should ever have been first choice. I don't think Cooper can be held responsible for the lack of funding for upgrades, and did okay (even though I'd have preferred a couple of up-and-comers) when it came to finding cover players.

If you change manager, go long-term. No more short-term fixes.

There is no way on earth that a vaguely competent manager would allow themselves to field a Vestergard-Faes defensive partnership. I don't know whether Okoli, Coady are viable alternatives (realistically they can't be much worse) or whether shape needs to be changed, but if you field those two - with those substandard FBs and CMs to screen them - then relegation is inevitable. Absolutely criminal defenders at this level.

A lovely technical player. Complete fodder in the PL. Sides rightly exploit his weaknesses game in game out.

He's a further symptom of everything wrong with the club. It was an awful job for any manager, admittedly, but it seems like another poor fit. When the sweeping changes that we need come, I expect he'll be among the casualties. And I honestly don't have a clue what he's doing most of the time. On top of us being a poor team, I also suspect that he is fundamentally crap.

We can easily let our emotions get in the way of our judgement with KP, and especially Vichai. He also made his mistakes. There were suggestions in the press that he was partly responsible for Pearson's first exit due to his desire for 'a more continental style of football' (I remember managing to find the link years ago but can't for the life of me track it down now). He appointed Sven and presided over his misspending, as well as that which followed our league win, and therefore blew any chance of us seriously capitalising on 2015-16. And of course - while Vichai's leadership certainly allowed our success to happen in a way that previous owners never could have, and some of his key decisions were undeniably spot on - the cheques he signed were not for the sums of money which typically lead to league titles. The 3.5m he parted with for Morgan, Drinkwater, Vardy, Mahrez, Albrighton, Simpson and Fuchs shouldn't have been enough to bring in the bulk of a PL-winning side. That was down to unthinkably and unprecedentedly good recruitment under Pearson and Walsh. They accumulated 100s of millions worth of talent for about 30m, and that's what made our success so special - that it wasn't down to a chairman's immense wealth, but rather to excellent management (predominantly, to my mind, by the managers and their teams). Either way, in his defence Top was by his father's side for all those great achievements. According to some reports it was he who pulled the plug on the post-Palace Pearson sacking, which allowed the Great Escape to happen. He presided over Rodgers' appointment and the FA Cup and Charity Shield wins. He's contributed a great deal from his own pocket - more, unless I'm mistaken, than was the norm under his father. If we're going to credit Vichai for the success, Top - like Rudkin, while I'm at it - would also deserve a fair share. Personally I thought Vichai was a very good chairman, and while I'm fond of his son and still hope he starts to do the right things, I doubt he will and can't argue with the fact that he's not been up to the task so far. But I also think that a big reason for our crowd holding back as much as they do with their criticism for the board, and also for the sense of absolute mourning/anger for someone that they cherished letting them down so badly, is that they always overstated KP's role in our success. Yes, it was crucial. But Vichai's Dream was always no more than an improbable dream. I'm sure he had lots of other improbable dreams that never worked out for him. In our case, Pearson, Walsh, Shakey, Claudio and a bunch of players who proved themselves to be many times bigger than their apparent worth were - more than even Vichai - the ones who actually pulled it off. If we'd seen that, we'd have been quicker to question Top, and far less shellshocked when it dawned on us that he, along with Rudkin and whoever else, was ruining the club.

One of the reasons why I'm sometimes slower to pinpoint Rudkin as the root of all our woes is that I'd heard something very similar to this from one of those 'I know someone who knows someone' sources. The sort of thing you don't feel the need to repeat until someone else says it. The suggestion back then was that he's extremely personable where not everyone else is, solidly professional where others aren't, willing to basically run everything by himself because others won't, and also one of the only people among the higher-ups who has the first clue about football. It struck me that I'd known people like that in my working life, and that they're often the ones who take the flak for others' negligence and incompetence. Of course, he deserves criticism because he's paid a huge amount of money for running the football side of the business, and it's evidently badly-run. But it did get me wondering whether he's the willing fool who's basically keeping things ticking over, and whether the whole thing could come crashing down if we got rid of him. That said, apparently it's already crashing down regardless. So yeah, fire him.

I honestly think you're wrong here. We were getting undone in the FLC in the second half of last season and sides were picking holes in our shape. It's all very well saying that you just need good coaching to make it work at this level - better than, say, Parker when he went down playing 'the right way', or Kompany, or Martin at Southampton, or countless others - but those coaches who can pull off purists' football with limited options are few and far between. My gut instinct was that we'd have been mauled at this level if we'd played the Enzo way, and the closer we've edged towards it under Ruud, the worse the results have been. Yes, it can be done, but I was unconvinced last season that our options were all that well suited to possession football at a higher level. I do think you need a calibre of technical player that goes sone way beyond some of those individuals you listed (Mavididi, Reid, Ayew, Winks). I think it's quite a basic argument to say that our big problem has been appointing two crap managers. Neither have had the time to truly show that, but we know full well that many of these players got relegated the last time they were in the top flight, that recruitment has been iffy for years, and that the club has been a bit of a shambles behind the scenes. These would all be way higher up on my list of concerns, and reasons for failure, than either manager (though, like you, I was pretty unimpressed by both appointments) or the idea that we're not playing football the Enzo way.

You're suggesting that poor results last season and this have nothing to do with the manager and everything to do with Ndidi. I think there's a risk of falling into the trap of believing that there are one or two straightforward magical solutions to our plight. Wilf's form trailed off for several seasons towards the end of our last PL spell, and he was a regular in the relegated side. We did drop off midway through last season, but form was mixed even after his return (we lost 5 of the 12 games he started). He'd been up and down this season, to my eyes at least. I haven't seen enough to believe that the boss is the weak link either - I just feel the squad is poor, unsettled and that two different managers haven't had the time or circumstances to effect change. But I'd be wary of thinking that a manager was entirely guiltless and helpless, or that we're the only ones to suffer key injuries. Mads was a huge loss, but we couldn't have banked on him continuing to work miracles. And some of Ruud's decision-making, in spite of the difficult circumstances, can be questioned.

When interest came in for Enzo, the club looked at our form in the second half of last season, together with our resources for the close season, and clearly decided that our best bet was to become a hard-to-beat team of scrappers. Cooper seemed like a reasonable appointment to achieve those ends, but the problem was that everything had been built for a very different kind of team. Players had bought into the 'idea', as Enzo called it, and it was a hard-sell to say 'okay, now we have to forget all of that'. But having not followed through with the 'idea', they also failed to see through the Plan B. They reacted to the dressing room discontent from players who were always going to get mauled if they tried to play like a poor man's Man City. They reacted to fans who either felt a personal repulsion to Cooper from Day One or who had unrealistic expectations about what to expect from the team. Perhaps they even needed to, because it looked as if there had been a club-wide rejection of Cooper's ideas, and that therefore it was never going to work. But nothing has got better. We've had more possession against bigger teams which gives the false impression at times that we're more in control of games, but it seems clearer and clearer to me that we were always going to need to buy into the idea of being a dogged, nasty, relentless team of spoilers in order to scrap for survival. We just rejected that notion as any sort of necessity, and as such now we've become an opponent's dream. It's bordering on hopeless. Of course, I don't think Cooper is a particularly good manager, nor have I seen enough to know Ruud is a particularly bad manager. And I think the mess behind the scenes as regards finances and poor recruitment has created a nightmarish working environment for a boss. But what we're seeing on the field now is just the consequence of players, fans and club management failing to understand how a squad comprised of players who aren't really good enough for this level can become competitive. As for the club as a whole, for a long time I've felt that Top simply needs to recognise the state of things. Whether Rudkin is the head of the serpent that needs removing or not, a thorough restructuring - even now - with an admission that things need to be done differently and built properly over time would go a long way. People will accept that it might not be an instant bounce-back, that there'll be short-term pain before things get back on track, and accept that maybe we need to be recruiting players for next year and beyond rather than another raft of desperate signings designed for little more than the next few months. You can still sell that to our fans. That said, I agree with people who believe that our success had more to do with Pearson's team than with wild investment or football-savvy from those at the top, and I obviously agree that Vichai was a more accomplished leader than his far less experienced son. But people want to like Top and they'll back him if he shows willingness to embrace real change. The Rudkin Out thing has grown so loud because people just want to see evidence that people who have been very slow on the uptake are finally learning. His sacking - whether it's the root of our woes or not - would indicate that we were actually acting, and understood the gravity of the situation. But at some point, to get fans back on board, you're going to have to show that you're willing to learn from this catalogue of ****-ups.

What exactly did Vardy do wrong?!

You know, I have to go along with this. I try to be balanced and occasionally even positive, but I really dislike this set of players. In fact, I reckon we've steadily been losing our identity ever since the Pearson years. But I am aware that saying this makes me sound like my grandfather.

Signings like Cannon and Coady! And are Winks or Mavididi good enough at this level? Did Fatawu look good enough when he was available (Southampton game excepted)? We weren't even in promotion form for the second half of last season and plenty of people on here wanted Enzo gone. As misguided as that might have been, there's no reason to believe that this squad is mid-table material. If it were, we should stop getting on at the chairman and concentrate on getting rid of the manager. But that would be totally nuts, because the truth is that we're nowhere near a PL standard squad. Part of our problem now is that upon relegation we went for an instant return, spent big and invested in a style of football that we weren't willing to carry on into the PL. And it's quite expensive to pay for PL-quality players who can play the Guardiola way - too expensive for what we had at our disposal. As such, Maresca isn't that great lost leader at all. Many of our current problems stem from what we did, and what we didn't, when we had to rebuild in the FLC. Of course, well done Enzo for taking us up, and well done for being a good coach, but the nature of our promotion has added to our current problems, and is in keeping with the long-term mismanagement that we've been seeing since Top took charge.

Based on the second half of last season, our limited resources in the summer, the fortunes of sides who went up with us then chose to persist with the would-be Pep football that Enzo favoured, and the fact that we've been rubbish under two different managers since then, I reckon the evidence suggests it wouldn't have been great.

Well I wouldn't argue with you on any of that. People who believed Maresca would have done more with this squad, or that Cooper should have had them upper-mid table were utterly deluded, and responsible for some of the strangest posts I've ever read on here. I have some sympathy for Ruud and the graveness of the mess he's inherited, and there's still some hope that he'll get a handle on things, but even so he's making some awful, awful decisions.