Biggles22

You’re assuming that the trainers and their training expertise is of a sufficient level that they can discern the quality and effort of the players in training. Based on current levels of play, that’s far from a safe assumption. I mean, Sadler, Stowell, and Shakey assist Smith with picking Soumare week in, week out. Surely Soumare’s not convincing these super savvy strategists by putting in 100% in training only to coast during a match. As for no manager seeing his quality, the current manager of the champions of the African Cup of Nations seems able to recognise it. As you say, it does seem a bit bizarre not to get picked when he performs more reliably than others on game day and has done so in one or two pretty pressurized games.

Chelsea will be back in for Fofana. They’ll properly test our resolve with something around the $80m mark. If the club accept, it will indicate finances are more of a concern than first thought as this might well strain the BR relationship to breaking point. Hope I’m wrong.

I think our current stance is a result of the following “perfect storm”: 1. Punching above our weight (and perhaps over-extending (in terms of finances) for the last several years and missing out on CL football two years in a row - we knew it would come back to bite us but this has been compounded by: 2. COVID - we had to over reach slightly to mix it with the top 6, revenue was hit by COVID (as with all clubs) but we were one of the hardest hit for reasons stated not to mention the owners’ primary business suffering more than most and then, of course, the significant injuries for much of last year necessitating some dubious transfers as cover for long term player loss which we now need to offload in order to comply with FFP regs 3. The current global economic crisis (aside from COVID losses) was unexpected and far more severe than could be anticipated back in January, which further compounded those losses already experienced by King Power and by businesses in general, as a result… 4. Our owner’s financial responsibility (feel free to compare with Barcelona - yikes!!) means we won’t risk club annihilation for the sake of highly questionable and very marginal short term benefits All this to say, the downward cycle has hit more severely than the club anticipated (hence BR now openly backtracking on the squad refresh) but this more mature/sensible approach which flies in the face of most football owners MOs will serve us well in the long term. We will not be alone in experiencing this regression, and I’m confident we’ll do better than most upon reflection. Others will suffer later in their respective business cycles. Top may well end up seeking some additional financial support if the current climate is more prolonged than expected, but the alternatives resulting from throwing all caution to the wind now could be catastrophic in the longer term and it isn’t feasible under FFP regs, anyway). All this to say, I’d rather we go through this period of club-controlled belt tightening than spiral into the abyss. Our owners care and wish to ensure we’re able to continue to adhere to the mission of disrupting the established order. No doubt we look like we’re regressing relative to the rapid and historic rise of the past 6-7 years, but this current calculated stance allows us to bounce back and I’m good with that.

Such a key member of the LCFC squad. Invaluable both on and off the pitch. Would love to see him hang around in a coaching capacity when all is said and done.

Either he spurned your advances or you’re between seven and ten. Either way, your vitriolic comment suggests you do have some lingering “grief” with him. Time to move on.

Very disappointing. So disjointed with the gulf between defense and attack exacerbating the issues faced in a midfield under so much pressure. In turn, this places huge pressure on the back line and they’re opened up time and again. I don’t think we can play Ndidi with Mendy with this current back line. Too similar. There’s simply no fluidity or link up in midfield and everything now must come from out wide to one of the shortest players on the field. Crying out for a holding midfielder to link with Maddison, Iheanacho and Perreira.

Which is absolutely frightening considering the money spent on 3 direct replacements this summer.

Assuming that he’s not trying to get sent off, one would surmise that his declining skill set and athleticism are only going to continue to negatively impact his game. As such, the “gap” widens between he and the young guns running rings around him and so persisting with him in this team will lead to much of the same. You cannot question his heart, but must question his ability at this level. Time to roll the dice and move on. And for the love of all that is holy, it’s time for a back three and two wing backs (all of which we currently have).

Time will tell. IMHO, I see great value added in the defense but am struggling to see much consistency in terms of attacking creativity beyond Maddison. As has been said numerous times, our attack has many question marks, notably around these issues of consistency, with Ghezzal, Gray, Silva, Diabate, Iheanacho all bordering on the mercurial side in terms of talent. Puel’s ability to develop this consistency is fundamental to success this season. It remains to be seen whether the move to a more versatile approach involving greater emphasis on more wide-spread creativity inclusive of Pereira, Chillwell and Albrighton, pays dividends. There certainly seems to be a premium on ensuring players, “old” and new, have the requisite skill and composure on the ball, even at the back, to pass and play with attacking intent. Distributing creativity is Puel’s second challenge. It should also be remembered that embedding seven new players into the squad along with, perhaps, reacclimating several others fresh from long-term loans last year, is no small feat. The third of Puel’s challenges. That being said, an overhaul has been needed since 2016/17 and kudos to Puel and the board for having the balls to front up and make changes even if it means letting go of links to “the season” and admitting mistakes involving transfers from previous windows. By no means do I think the transformation is complete and so, for what it’s worth, am inclined to thinking more along the lines of an arbitrary 7/10 for this window. But this current focus on more skilled youth with a higher ceiling means I’m certainly far more confident we’re heading in the right direction. Also think it means, bar a catastrophic start, the possibility of mid-table mediocrity for this season will be accepted by the board, with Puel backed to continue to reinvent and reconstruct a new LCFC image and brand (supported by state-of-the-art training facilities and focus on improving U23s) as long as progress towards sustainable longer-term growth is more assured. Stability is paramount to this and this window’s true success will be reflected in less substantial activity in the future being needed. Finally, I think this window’s success will be contingent on all of the above manifesting itself in positive football restoring and sustaining the general positivity in the fanbase. We need to see attacking intent even if it occasionally doesn’t result in a win. Side to side possession at all costs football isn’t going to cut it even taking into consideration the large influx of new players and adoption of new systems and structures on the field. Not asking for “total football”, but attacking verve would go a long way to satiating the expectations of the LCFC faithful. Hope this window helps to secure this for us. Suffice it to say, not asking for much ?. Roll on tomorrow night. Can’t wait to get started.

Is that still on even with Leo leaving now confirmed?

Really don’t wish this to happen. But if so, would demand Andreas Pereira as a make weight.

Permanent? Heard Shinji was also a possibility to Pachuca to join Honda. This was before the WC, though.

Which is why I also suggested an unwillingness to recognise the obvious might also be at the root. However, I would hope his proximity to the player and to the entire playing staff doesn’t cloud his perspective and overall judgment. If it is player power that you’re alluding to, then we’re already doomed.

The speed of this transaction alone suggests we should be concerned at the very least. Alarm bells are ringing as it conflicts with current philosophy. Why take the unnecessary risk when every penny spent is now being heavily scrutinized and is predicated upon considered bookkeeping. Perhaps Puel knows something others do not? Anything to do with Plancque leaving yesterday?

Would love to believe this to be true, but I don’t believe we’re willing to shell out 35-40 million this time around. First, Sigurdsson was viewed as the quintessential “missing piece” last season and so we were willing to take that risk to complete the team. Also, this fee doesn’t gel with our current philosophy of overhauling through buying relatively inexpensive and versatile young talent (20-25 million) and developing perhaps with a view to selling high. Profit margin on Bailey would be too small based on the “small club factor” which seemed to negatively influence the lower than hoped/expected fee most felt we received for Mahrez. Of course, it might not take 35-40 for Bailey in which case, game on.

Would suggest Albrighton at RB is only as ridiculous as Chilly at LB. In my humble opinion, they’re one and the same only on different sides of the pitch. Both would benefit more operating as WBs, but apparently we won’t/don’t play a back three.

Certainly agree with Albrighton as additional cover. He fits the versatility mould. But would argue that Amartey also presents as a RB/RM based on previous playing time. Certainly has the engine to commit to this role.

Interesting. Once again, reduces depth at RB which Perreira briefly solved but suggests Amartey is firmly entrenched as the de facto utility back with DJ (if/when he signs up) falling into a similar category. Focus is definitely on sustainability through identifying youth with strong upside and versatility. Cheaper in the short term and potential for profit later on. Perhaps that’s the crux of our new 5 year plan while we develop infrastructure?

Based on past histories, particularly 2016, we irresponsibly splashed the cash and are still dealing with the fallout out today. Perhaps it is our ability, or lack there of, to recognise “big” players which is the real issue with ownership subsequently lacking confidence in the scouting network and Rudkin rather than in Puel. Once bitten, twice shy and all that jazz.

Based on recent performances, I respectfully disagree. Puel’s inability and/or unwillingness to recognise this is baffling and bordering on the absurd.

I’m wondering if the disaster of the summer of 2016 has not left the club shot-shy in terms of current transfer policy. Not only has the residual effect seemingly stymied our current finances, but it seems to also have scarred those involved with financing that shambles. Subsequently, we’re playing it relatively safe and unwilling to break any transfer records at the club to bring in the proverbial game- changer even while those around us are doing so in order to compete in a hyper-inflated market. The combination of reduced capability and confidence is extremely concerning. Of course, this could all be a giant smoke screen. However, history would suggest not. I think this reflects a greater lack of overall confidence in the business team (including Macia and Rudkin) than in Puel. Frustrating, but perhaps wise, given recent past experiences.

Wondering if this chap is viewed more in a “Kante-esque” role with a more traditional CB still also on the cards. Strengths seem very similar to Kante in terms of ability to break up opposition play. Does he have a similar motor? Perhaps able to play both along a flexible back line and in front of same if necessary. Adaptability seems to be what Puel is after.

Appreciate that we have October’s deadline which begs the questions: Where did October’s deadline come from initially? More importantly, why October? Two months after the season begins and another two before a “hyper-inflated” transfer window. Seems odd, even nonsensical, to pull the plug on a manager at a point furthest from being able to do much about the choice of personnel he has at his disposal. What are they going to know more about in October than they do now (other than not replacing Mahrez makes us weaker on the whole)? Again, why wait to react in a far less opportune moment when moving proactively before the summer would have saved time and money, and the removed the apparent desire for failure to fuel the need to act. Not much business acumen displayed there.

With all due respect to LCFC sheff, there are obvious holes in this level of purported inside knowledge from whomever informed you: 1. Why wait till January’s inflated market to do business? Not much business sense there (and which overpriced heroes will want to leave the comfort of where they are to assist a floundering club?) 2. Similarly, who will City attract as a so called “big name” manager to pull off a miracle in saving a sinking ship? Not many (if any) big names worth their salt will be atttracted to that scenario. 3. Why wait to do tomorrow what you have an inkling needs doing today? Not much sense there as prices only rise as situations worsen and windows shrink and outside perceptions grow of a club in a mess. If Puel is not the man, then getting rid should/would have happened two months ago. Our owners do not seem the type prone to act only when in crisis. I do see them being more frugal and considered with transfers but this, again, conflicts with waiting until a mid- season crisis. Just doesn’t make sense and for all the same reasons your knowledgeable friend has put forwarded as reasons for pulling the trigger in January.