Tommy G

No my argument is they don’t have to reside there. It’s bonkers to suggest so - as other posters have been pointing out it’s been going on for ages - if you are going to beat the ownership with a stick at least come up with a good argument. The club does and has done plenty in the city - Vichai donated a million quid to the children’s unit at the LRI for starters. They have LCFC in the community and the women’s side uses belvoir drive and is in the WSL.

How do you plonk a world class state of the art facility of that size in the city centre, and why? The clubs missed a trick, they should have got you on the advisory board when they decided to make plans for a new training complex. What about all the local jobs generated from the new facility within Leicestershire? Or have we just forgotten about that.

What on earth has it got to do with anyone where the players live? I’d like to see some stats of who was living in Leicester city centre - if I was earning £50k a week I’d be nowhere near it - who can blame them. On another point - which other owners up and down the league(s) live in the same place as the club they own - possibly Delia at Norwich?! Do you think the Glazers are in a 2 up 2 down in Moss side? It’s absolutely irrelevant if they live on Granby St or in Berkshire/London. ”I’m a billionaire I’ll see if there’s anywhere in Glenfield while I’m over here”

Rudkin has absolutely everything to lose and nothing to gain from doing an interview with a journalist.

They are due at the end of March. Outside the club the only people that will know are the auditors

Dont bother replying he is a WUM

Nope - reading all this drivel is painful enough

No one does apart from the board and our auditors as it stands

The accounts will be out in about a month and I think I’ll refrain from even opening the thread - too painful to read the commentary.

So by your logic it’s Tops fault rather than Rudkins? Which completely contradicts your first point.

This is half the problem with this forum - people speculate and throw stuff out there like it’s fact and others lap it up. A training ground that cost a huundred million does not have running costs of “tens of millions” Honestly

Do you honestly think he has the sole responsibility for agreeing multi million pound contracts without an agreement or sanction from SW or Top. There will be a DLA in place like most businesses, as much as he’s not very good at his job to just say he’s responsible is daft and ignorant.

Probably - or it’s rudkins fault which is the default opinion!

No one really knows for sure but like I said we are in real squeaky bum territory

EFL wanted us to submit a business plan, and we disagreed, it was referred to the independent CFRP which agreed with LCFC. To conclude I think reading between the lines we are absolutely on the brink of some kind of potential penalty/points deduction. Promotion is massive or we are ducked.

Correct - percentage of most blokes wanting to give her a rodgering is 95%

Laura Trott currently sitting nex to to Rishi giggling during the budget - bit of political totty

Be a good excuse for Harry to back out of it

7 wins? Really. It will be less than that

You cheeky git! This happened about a 5 mins walk from where I live - certainly shook a few people up. ps the village is fine, the areas closer to Hinckley are a bit more rough but nowhere near the saff or new parks

Don’t want to see Enzo smiling away in the post match pressure saying 1 point gained when we come away with a 1-1 draw

Worst post of 2024 so far

Why on earth would you want to get Nigel Pearson appointed to the board. I presume this is a wind up?

Correct. The majority shareholders appoint the directors, so effectively in LCFC's case Top could sack the lot tomorrow and reinstate.

The majority of ''family run business'' are SME's though, this isn't. Most of the directors will also very likely be the majority or 100% shareholders, so they don't have to answer to anyone. Slightly different in this case, much bigger business - has a governing body to answer to, banks to answer to, a board of directors with NEDs who aren't shareholders. I get your point but I think we can agree its speculation.