Babylon

These numbers just don't compute with me, as a family we don't spend £30k a year, so why on earth would a single person need £31,000.... and "expectation to help grandchildren", well here is an idea, don't. I know it's going to be a bit different for generation rent, but still. I know people at work earning £25k and making to rent and live a life.

It's as good as already gone, the model needed to change a long time ago. In it's current state Leicestershire Live is a joke and I doubt anyone is paying any money for that click bait trash. I'd like to think a more modern version will eventually take it's place somehow.

If you could provide me with all the knowledge that Top and Susan Whelan have, I'll give you an answer.

She's on the board of directors FFS. You tried to tell me he was and laughably posted up the trust. All you've pointed out is that the Director of Football has more sway in football matters, great revelation there. But failure in that department goes up the chain, and the board of which she is on, is above him.

You haven't provided direct evidence, you've provided a link to the LCFC Trust and the LCFC website, neither of which are relevant. You've told me she doesn't get involved in the football side, when she clearly actually does, and seemingly don't understand what a CEO actually is. But do carry on.

Oh deary me. Perhaps you could post up the link to the company's house of Leicester City Football Club and not the Trust. You'll find he's not a director, whilst Susan Whelan is. Susan Whelan doesn't touch the football side... other than when she gets personally involved in the transfers, as people gloriously like to tell us on here, as reported by the Athletic, the Times etc. Or attending the premier league board meetings as the clubs representative. She's CEO, it's literally the highest ranking exec position in a company. She might not choose managers; they employ others for that. But if you are actually suggesting she doesn't outrank him that's laughable.

Sorry, I don't get your point. She's well above him in position; he's answerable to her, and she's the CEO and I'm going to presume she wants to run a successful organisation. He wasn't even on the board last time I looked. If she and the board thought he was entirely culpable, he'd be out of a job. If they knew it was all his fault, kept him in place because of some weird politics inside the club, then we have bigger problems than Rudkin don't we.

He isn't at the top, though; there are numerous people above him, The last time I looked, he wasn't even on the board; He's middle management. And this is exactly one of my points: either apportion blame around everyone or make the buck stop at the top. And the top is... well, Top... in fact, the top might actually be his mother, who is the Chairwoman of Kingpower Board and the person Top is ultimately responsible to. We have absolutely no idea what's happened at KP since Vichai's death, their appetite for the club, their appetite to deal with the debt, etc, that comes with it. Vichai we know, was willing and happy to back the club. An about turn in backing, or appetite for debt alone, can make a massive difference. Then you have the new FFP, which always seem to get rushed through. Another issue out of our control that we then just had to deal with, and try to react to. Go back in time and everyone was screaming "why aren't we buying anyone", I was one of a few voices pointing out the new rules were a massive issue. Now we are seeing points deductions, people seem to have got the idea. We were a successful club, we were trying to keep our best players and invest in new ones for European campaigns, that comes with big wages and money spent. The same people now saying we overspent will no doubt be the same ones who were screaming, "Buy more players" when chasing the top 4. If people were honest, the issue isn't what we spent; it's that we picked the wrong players; nobody cared we paid £25m for Maddison and gave him good money. Does Susan Whelan strike you as a fool, do people think if she thought it was all at his door, like people on here do, he wouldn't have got the tin tack by now. Or do we think that perhaps they know there are a few more nuances with what has gone wrong over the years, and he's going to take a portion of the blame, along with everyone else involved?

You see, it's shit like this that makes me think what's the point. Do you even bother to read the posts? I've said god knows how many times, that Rudkin is clearly going to take a portion of the blame. I've said numerous times in the last two pages, I think he's culpable for appointing a poor head of recruitment (a huge problem as most of the others stem from it). I've said times over the years, I believe there has, at times, been a serious lack of forwarding planning, amongst numerous other things. Just because I don't join in with the sad little bandwagon of trying to put the blame at one man's feet, doesn't mean I like him, or that he's good at his job.

There is a lot to unpack here, but I’ll say this at 3am… do you think he sets the budget? Do you think he decides we are ok to lose £80/£90m? Or do you think that comes from the very top? And presuming you, like me you are going to say clearly that’s going to be set and agreed above his pay grade. Can you not see that some of the stuff you are blaming all on him should actually be going up and down the chain a bit also. As for defending it, I’m defending a certain aspect of it. Where once again, people just want to blame one person for everything. I mean, I literally just said he’s to blame for installing a shit head scout, so it’s pretty clear I don’t think incoming transfers were working. And as for outgoing transfers. You are just being f****** obtuse at this stage. I’ve posted a huge amount of stuff on this trying to explain the situation we found ourselves in. It’s not defending it, it’s having my eyes open and looking at all the different things at play. And not just bashing RUDKIIIIN into my keyboard as a catch all for anything mildly annoying.

Funny Ric, I don’t seem to remember you moaning about the wage bill when we were chasing top four and buying good players.

Our previous scouts said pretty clearly that the value of the player is decided further down the chain and passed upwards. Walsh even said in his role of head of recruitment he was the one generally setting up the a large percentage of the deals with the other club. Do you actually think someone hands him the name of a player they want and he just randomly bids whatever he personally thinks they are worth? It’s utterly nonsensical. Of course he’s involved in the process, but this notion that he’s the one making totally unqualified decisions is frankly just stupid. He’s not paid huge fees for Maddison and Fofana (considering their history) on a whim. He’s done so as those who’ve been tracking them are utterly convinced they will be worth the money. He doesn’t get the credit for them, just like he shouldn’t for bad players who ended up failing and not being worth it. What he should get blamed for is installing those people in the first place. It took 5 minutes to know Rodgers pick for head of recruitment was likely to be a rubbish one given his record.

He doesn’t value the players. I don’t understand why people can’t grasp this. There is a team of people there specially to scout players and judge their worth or not. Either apportion blame to the people in the roles specially there to do certain jobs. Or if you want to blame the man at the top, you blame… well Top. There are direct decisions he’s clearly going to have been the one making said decisions, on appointments and sackings and there is valid criticism.

Ok... lets play this game. Hermansen, Doyle, Winks, Mavadidi, Fatal, Cannon, Maresca, top of the league smashing all records... RUDKIN MASTERCLASS. Kante, Maddison, Ricardo, Winning the league, winning the FA Cup, two top 5 finishes... RUDKIN MASTERCLASS. Or we just blaming him when things go wrong, and giving others credit when things go right. Just to clarify.

He doesn't pick the players to sign FFS.

So they would just like the ball passed forward a bit quicker, which doesn't have to be a long ball, nor "direct", which just infers exactly the same thing.

Has a single person asked for long ball football? Or is this just another attempt to invalidate how people feel.

Indeed it is, which is why I think it's a pointless argument. Like arguing about someone liking a song and someone else not.

You and your nuance aren't welcome here.

You can still play more "chess" like football and be entertaining. What you probably do need is better players to really make it work. It's alright trying to play like a mini Man City, but we don't have their players. So with those limitations, a bit of pragmatism helps. This notion that people are yearning for long ball football, I think, really misses what people would like.

I don't think trying to paint anyone who isn't sold on our style (in an entertainment) sense as a dinosaur is particularly helpful. I'm not going to comment too much on Enzo, I've probably not seen enough to give a fair opinion, despite having been bored plenty when I have watched, I've equally seen some really nice stuff. But under Rodgers, there was an element of overcoaching and players preprogrammed so much with the "pass, pass, pass" mentality, it stunted freedom of expression almost. An example is the number of times Barnes would turn back inside and recycle rather than burst into space, in what was an obvious opportunity really stank of that. I think that's where the robotic side of it comes in.

I think you could probably boil it down to a bit more pace and intensity. We started the passing game under Puel and he showed his frustration constantly repeating that we needed it, but never solved it. We solved it for a period under Rodger, but when things went wrong, he started the same thing. Enzo equally has pointed this out numerous times, and his frustration probably mirrors that of the fans at times. When passing football slows down, it's miserable to watch. Keep the intensity and I think you keep the fans on board and probably the manager happier.

If people would rather the style was a bit more entertaining, one game isn't going to change their minds.

It will have to be, we are in a pickle due to the new FFP rules and we have to slash the wage bill massively.

Indeed, I don't think I've said he isn't, have I. But it's not him just sat there on his own deciding what a player is or isn't worth.