Fennec-Fox Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 It's either this year position is the normal one or the last year position is the normal one... Certainly, last year season was a beautiful story in football... and a beautiful story of football can't be normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number 6 Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 Don't know why pundits think our position 10, 20, 30 years ago is more relevant to our aspirations than the one we achieved last season. Personally I'd judge it on the set up and current squad, which should be mid table prem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaewbudda Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 I think "normal level" is a problematic term. It's far more nuanced than that. Historically, LCFC have been a yo-yo club. Historically, the English League champions don't face relegation battles. Therein lies the contradiction. Up to the players now to prove where we "should" be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crinklyfox Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 52 minutes ago, 38trout said: This may not be relevant and I apologise if its not. In 1995 University of Leicester hosted three lectures about football delivered by guest speakers - Graham Taylor, Pat Nevin and the then Chairman of the club, Martin George. All the lectures were fascinating and none more so than Martin George's. Bearing in mind that this was 22 years ago, he spoke about why Leicester City were a serial yo-yo club between the first and second division - that this was the 'norm'. He argued that their was a direct correlation between the average positions of league clubs in the top two divisions over recent years and a club's ground capacity - he didn't mention attendances though. He demonstrated that our then ground capacity, as compared to the ground capacity of the others teams in the top two leagues, mirrored (within a position or two) the club's average league position over the last few years . Martin George explained how the club managed it's finances. The importance of ground size and the resulting ticket revenues generated were used to pay player salaries and, therefore, the larger the capacity the greater the revenue generated and the greater potential to attract better players with higher wages - hence higher average league position for those clubs with bigger grounds. Transfers were paid for by commercial activities, selling players and income, TV deals and some investment from the chairman or board. Apart from two clubs bucking the then trend - over-achievers Wimbledon (small ground and attendances) and under-achievers Wolves (big ground and but poor league positions) generally and surprisingly this argument appeared stacked up. It would be interesting to see if this still rings true given the current TV deals and commercial activities etc. However, if it is still relevant, it doesn't explain clubs of equal size to city performing better than us currently. Perhaps being a yo-yo is our 'norm' and last year was a statistical blip - a fantastically wonderful blip nonetheless and one that I would have hoped could have been built on to become a regular mid-table team or higher if the right conditions and players came together. It's an interesting theory, thanks for posting. If it's correct I would still expect to see a statistical distribution of clubs around the norm, which would explain why some clubs with larger capacity grounds (such as Sheffield Wednesday at Hillsborough) consistently fail to get promoted. Then there's also similar size clubs to ours such as Coventry City who have plumbed the depths. I think it's a bit more complex than the theory proposed by Mr George - good governance and management play a significant part in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fox Covert Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 I wouldn't say there is a 'normal level' at all. If you look at the league as a whole, the long term pattern is for a few clubs to be dominant for a while, then to fade away. Because Chelsea, Arsenal, Man City and Man Utd have been dominant for so long people assume this is the natural order. It isn't. Before Ranieri became manager of Chelsea, they were on a par with West Ham and never expected to win anything very often. In the sixties and first half of the seventies Leeds were dominant. But before Don Revie Leeds had never done anything much, and their top division record was on a par with Birmingham and Stoke. Liverpool were struggling in the second division before Bill Shankly became their manager. Southampton and Crystal Palace were perennial non-achievers in the lower divisions until the sixties, since when good management and hard work has raised both clubs up a few levels. Martin George is right. His is the thinking which eventually led to the club deciding to leave Filbert Street as it could never be improved to have the capacity and facilities which could generate the revenue to support a club which could expect to be in the top flight all of the time, and buck the yo-yo status associated with City for virtually the club's entire history. Our Thai owners have the money to back the club on a scale which Martin George could never have imagined with the butcher, baker and candlestick maker status of most of the City board at the time. They clearly think the club is capable of achieving at a higher level and that is why they bought the club. I confidently predict that in ten years time there will be a different top four in the Premier League, or whatever it is called then. It will probably include a couple of today's biggest clubs, and probably won't include us. However the Thai owners probably expect this club to regularly achieve a great deal more than it has for most of its' history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Black Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 No such thing as a "normal level". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheppyFox Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 It's the amount we've spent, results have to be relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beachyboy Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 2 minutes ago, The Fox Covert said: I wouldn't say there is a 'normal level' at all. If you look at the league as a whole, the long term pattern is for a few clubs to be dominant for a while, then to fade away. Because Chelsea, Arsenal, Man City and Man Utd have been dominant for so long people assume this is the natural order. It isn't. Before Ranieri became manager of Chelsea, they were on a par with West Ham and never expected to win anything very often. In the sixties and first half of the seventies Leeds were dominant. But before Don Revie Leeds had never done anything much, and their top division record was on a par with Birmingham and Stoke. Liverpool were struggling in the second division before Bill Shankly became their manager. Southampton and Crystal Palace were perennial non-achievers in the lower divisions until the sixties, since when good management and hard work has raised both clubs up a few levels. Martin George is right. His is the thinking which eventually led to the club deciding to leave Filbert Street as it could never be improved to have the capacity and facilities which could generate the revenue to support a club which could expect to be in the top flight all of the time, and buck the yo-yo status associated with City for virtually the club's entire history. Our Thai owners have the money to back the club on a scale which Martin George could never have imagined with the butcher, baker and candlestick maker status of most of the City board at the time. They clearly think the club is capable of achieving at a higher level and that is why they bought the club. I confidently predict that in ten years time there will be a different top four in the Premier League, or whatever it is called then. It will probably include a couple of today's biggest clubs, and probably won't include us. However the Thai owners probably expect this club to regularly achieve a great deal more than it has for most of its' history. yeah I think man utd are the only team, I can definitely see being in the top 4 in 10 years, man city/ Chelsea if the rich owners go it's a slippery slope, Arsenal when Wenger goes may slide, the global brand is why I can see Leicester being top 10, it's a compelling news story whatever happens at Leicester an creates interest an intrigue, I can also see a sleeping giant from Championship/ League 1 coming back an being in contention within 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whetstonefox Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 The club should always be pushing for top half premier league, quite a lot of clubs would have the same aspirations, some in the premier currently, quite a few in the championship. For a lot of these clubs depends on owners and the correct managerial decisions. We are lucky in that regard to a certain extent. in 10 years time it could quite easily be Leeds, Sheffield Weds, Wolves etc back in the big time. Seems to go round in cycles. Stoke have been in the PL for 8 years and have stability. In 30 years time people will recall our 3 seasons (if we do go down) people won't recollect Stoke spell unless they do something extraordinary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIKTOR-LE5 Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDOMldRaz60 A Man United bell end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJS Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 It depends what you mean by normal, really. Our historical norm is top end second tier, bottom end top tier. I'd expect that to continue - obviously with exceptional periods either side - until the day I die. There are lots of factors behind that. Some socieconomic: top players are always more likely to pick London and Manchester as locations to live around than the Midlands, for example. Some as a result of the sheer volume of competition; we are one of a good 20-30 clubs of a similar size and provincial location with similar histories and ambitions. We can't all be successful all at once. That said, our historical norm being what it is isn't a reason not to be ambitous for more. But we do need to accept that the likes of say, Stoke, Norwich, Sheffield Utd, Portsmouth (to take a cross section of similar sized clubs experiencing a variety of fortunes) will also have the same in mind at that at times they will prevail and we'll be mediocre. Let's not forget that we have just prevailed in the best way imaginable. For all the doom, gloom and disagreement about decisions taken recently we are champions of England and still in the European Cup. That's about as good as it gets - as it will ever get - as a Leicester fan. These are the good days, although you wouldn't think that were the case in recent days and weeks. I would day though that there is no doubt that this season has been a disappointment. I expected a top ten finish and progression in the Champions' League and I'm disappointed that we're only going to achieve half of that. But such is life as a Leicester fan. I've never been of the view that last season opened the door to is being one of the big clubs. I think people who believed that were always deluding themselves and perhaps denying themselves the opportunity to enjoy the achievement for what it was. I never wanted it anyway. I'm quite happy with us the way we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totbl Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 3 hours ago, brucey said: Not sure there's such a thing as a 'normal level', only expected level for the current level of squad talent and investment Exactly, the club sets its expectations, not the media, nor our history, because the owners have brought in a new era at the club and we are no longer the club of the yo yo years. Last year shows what can be achieved, although we're obviously not.expecting that again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facecloth Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 I'm confused. I'm watching the analysis after the Spurs game and they're talking about Spurs challenging for titles and being a regular top four team. And also doing well in Europe. Surely Spurs should know they're place, stand aside and let one of the Manchester clubs into the top 4 and be happy with 5th or 6th. Why is this club and its fans having ambitions I'll never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 2 hours ago, Chico1958 said: I want excitement not mid table. Last year the greatest sporting story ever told, the year before the greatest escape, the year before winning the championship at a canter, the year before that getting into the playoffs with the last kick of the last game and losing it with the last kick of the semi-final. Chuck in this year and it'll have been 5 seasons since we just did nothing. I'd kill for just a dull season where nothing happens at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SecretPro Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 Not sure we can ever says that this is our level with the current premier league winning squad. I expect us to be a perennial top 7 club in 2 years time. In fact, that's what I expected to be this year, but we blew any chance of progress in the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urban.spaceman Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 The only people that do are the media, who we humiliated last season and are more than happy to patronise us. And the idiotic fans of other clubs that believe that narrative. Anyone who's watched us for the last two years knows where our 'real' level is. And it's not in the bottom half of the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxinsocks Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 That tizier bloke is at best a conference pundit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 Sick to ****ing death of supposed "levels". It's all utter bollocks. How can you believe in that after last year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 5 hours ago, 4everfox said: Considering the fact that we are Champions and we are the 20th richest club in the world (8th in Britain) I'm going to say no we are much better then that. We are easily a top 10 club in England. Please stop carrying on with this lie that we're the 20th richest club in the world. Because WE'RE NOT! The figures quoted represent the turnover from the 2015/2016 season only. And in order to become a Top Ten club in England, it takes much more than a one-in-a-million title win. It takes time, patience, professionalism in all areas, a mid- to long-term goal, a clear philosophy, a suitable working environment, infrastructure and of course, money. We have some or most of that - but from my point of view are currently lacking in professionalism and planning ahead. It also doesn't help with people in the management department coming and going on a regular basis or getting the sack - how are you supposed to build on that? The success seems to have gotten to too many heads, fans included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benguin Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 Perhaps but our performances are not at our expected level. If we were drawing to rivals and losing by a goal to good teams then maybe but we are getting destroyed week in week out. I'm sorry but our performance on the pitch in not our expected level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zola Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 Im sure players going to shift into overdrive from now. Last 3 months they played like shait in order to remove CR. Scan see win against Pool and lots of pressing and running around.. And if results really improve and LCFC wins majority of games, they should not have respect from majority of fans as their job is to play for club and not manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koke Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 Ffs we even have nobodies like Mignolet sticking the knife in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 3 hours ago, Chico1958 said: We've been nothing special for 10 years before last season O'Niell gave us 4 good years in the Premiership along with three Cup Finals Bloomfield and Milne gave us some of the best football seen at Filbert St Pearson gave us excitement as well League 1, Championship Winners and Play Off, plus the Greatest Escape in Premiership History Let's be fair our expectations went up on the back of last season and the team have failed to deliver. I thought Claudio would be our Ferguson or Wenger but that's not going to happen now I want excitement not mid table. Give me Cup Finals, Championship Play Offs, Winning Leagues ( League 1, Championship or Premier ) I want passion, teamwork, people who play for the shirt cos they care, But I don't want Pearson back. There's got to be a Manager out there who could do it. We just need to find him You want excitement? Says the Welsh guy who joined the forum in late 2016! For how long have you been following us - I mean, really? I can name about a dozen footballing "events" in the past fifteen years no other (English or Welsh) club has gone through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zola Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 1 minute ago, Benguin said: Perhaps but our performances are not at our expected level. If we were drawing to rivals and losing by a goal to good teams then maybe but we are getting destroyed week in week out. I'm sorry but our performance on the pitch in not our expected level. but you expect from them to run and fight.. I did not see any fire in them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox42 Posted 26 February 2017 Share Posted 26 February 2017 I wouldn't worry of what others think about what our natural position should be. I guarantee most outsiders are saying we should be where we are just because Ranieri is sacked. They're saying this from their hearts not from their minds like us. I think most of those outsiders deep down know we can achieve mid table. You have to look at what the same people thought when Ranieri was still our manager this season. Some even predicted us to finish 7-9th back in August AFTER Kante was sold, for crying out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.