dynamark Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 MOTD 2 -He has earned the right to take them down from Holt. What a thing to say .Entirely shows why the decision had to be taken They kept going on about player revolt with nothing but gossip.BBC Fake news
Goober Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 The presenter kept trying to play the 'back stabbing player' card, was nice to see Upson pretty much rubbish it. I think Holt chose his words wrongly there too, but again he says that from a neutral perspective. Us actually going down would mean absolutely nothing to him
st albans fox Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 2 minutes ago, dynamark said: MOTD 2 -He has earned the right to take them down from Holt. What a thing to say .Entirely shows why the decision had to be taken They kept going on about player revolt with nothing but gossip.BBC Fake news It's a stupid thing to say - he means he earned the right to try and keep us up. of course if he fails then the other statement becomes true. I believe the owners also felt he had earned the right to keep us up but something changed behind the scenes and they lost trust.
splinterdream Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 Each season you'll have your objective outlined and a transfer budget given, he was told to keep us up and given £80m, if it's blindingly obvious he isn't going to meet the objective he has to go. Oliver Holt is looking at us from afar, he can't see how obvious relegation would be with Ranieri
ithuriel Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 Who cares what these scutters think, last season they were rubbishing that we would win it and prior to last season starting they could not wait to see him sacked yet again after his much reported failure with Greece. Like all those twats posting on the Facebook page, slagging Leicester down. Its just another short termist witch hunt like when those three idiots made that sex tape in Thailand. They will soon move on with their second rate opinions.
Blanchflower78 Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 everyone outside the club thinks that. Claudio should have been 'allowed' to take us down. There lies the problem, it wasnt 'allowed' a clearly a change had to be made as a result. I am utterly devastated for Claudio, never barracked him and wouldnt have done so even if we had gone down.however, the question remains 'why wouldnt you change it if you felt there was a chance of improving chances?'. Not to mention the unrest tgat clearly existed. Hate the whole situation.
RonnieTodger Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 It's this kind of complacency that's led us to being as shit as we are. It's as if Claudio hasn't under-performed this season. I love this shit about "so what if they go down". Yet they write a shit ton of articles about United not making the top 4.
Tielemans63 Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 I honestly don't care what these guys think. Over the last few days all they've shown is a) just how little they knew about our situation and b) that they are almost all only interested in presenting themselves as morally superior. Unfortunately it's fashionable and very very easy to criticise LCFC right now so we just have to get used to it or ignore it. It'll be interesting to see if any of them change their tune if we stay up in style. I'd imagine they will, they're a pretty fickle bunch, most were mocking Ranieri when he first got the job.
Max Wall Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 Son of an actress, Oxford educated posh boy who ghost wrote Neil Warnocks book. Far from the Oracle.
joachim1965 Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 10 minutes ago, Mease said: Tw@t ! Of the highest order....
Tielemans63 Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 The more I think about it the more I think that this whole notion of 'earning the right to take a team down' is actually a completely ludicrous debate. I would argue that no manager in history has earned the 'right to take a side down' because the whole thing suggests that the manager is bigger and more important than the club and in my opinion that should never ever be the case. I'm not saying that that managers should or shouldn't be sacked in that situation - that's up to their club, I'm saying how can it ever be a manager's 'right' to take a club down?
Mease Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 1 minute ago, Paddy. said: The more I think about it the more I think that this whole notion of 'earning the right to take a team down' is actually a completely ludicrous debate. I would argue that no manager in history has earned the 'right to take a side down' because the whole thing suggests that the manager is bigger and more important than the club and in my opinion that should never ever be the case. I'm not saying that that managers should or shouldn't be sacked in that situation - that's up to their club, I'm saying how can it ever be a manager's 'right' to take a club down? Earned the right to try and keep them up would have made more sense but even then we were beyond repair, now we have a chance. so easy to judge when you don't care either way.
Matt Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 I saw a great statement yesterday. It went along the lines of if Ranieri deserved 'the right' to take us down, a free pass if you like, surely these players deserve the same. No? Didn't think so.
Mease Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 2 minutes ago, Matt said: I saw a great statement yesterday. It went along the lines of if Ranieri deserved 'the right' to take us down, a free pass if you like, surely these players deserve the same. No? Didn't think so. Great stuff, someone of note saying like it is
Gerard Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 53 minutes ago, st albans fox said: It's a stupid thing to say - he means he earned the right to try and keep us up. of course if he fails then the other statement becomes true. I believe the owners also felt he had earned the right to keep us up but something changed behind the scenes and they lost trust. It's not like we've sacked Ranieri in October. Anyone who closely follows the club knows Ranieri has been given plenty of time and money to arrest the situation but we've been increasingly getting worse month on month. The vast majority of people who have concluded it was the wrong decision to sack Ranieri do so out of ignorance to the facts.
Vlad the Fox Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 Thankfully our owners don't think like half the pundits and have kept focus on their objectives. Good tweet by Geoff.
Goober Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 1 minute ago, Gerard said: It's not like we've sacked Ranieri in October. Anyone who closely follows the club knows Ranieri has been given plenty of time and money to arrest the situation but we've been increasingly getting worse month on month. The vast majority of people who have concluded it was the wrong decision to sack Ranieri do so out of ignorance to the facts. This is absolutely it for me. Losses against Hull, Watford, Bournemouth, WBA, Sunderland (the list goes on tbf) where we were absolutely terrible, along with number of big batterings early on in the season and such. He's not been sacked because we've lost the last 6..we've been horrendous all year and we've actually managed to get worse. I lost faith in him being the right man after the battering at Porto, sacking him then may well have been too early but we'd have been in a much better position for it you would have thought.
Ted Maul Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 That 'earned the right to take us down' line is really winding me up. Seriously, get to ****. Sure, it would be nice for the 'story' to reach its honourable conclusion in the eyes of the media, pundits and people who wanted us to win it. But for us the story doesn't end. We're the ones who are left watching our club having to strip the wage bill and rebuild from scratch, all of Nige's work totally unravelled, waiting for our 30 seconds of coverage on channel 5 on Saturday nights, no money or interest from the media whatsoever as the prats on Soccer Saturday and Sunday Supplement forget we exist. No thank you, we'll take our chances on our own destiny, even if it means having to listen to everyone who doesn't have to watch us every week have a mild nervous breakdown over the decision.
Facecloth Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 The problem with these pundits and journalists is that they jumped on the bandwagon of a fairytale that wasn't theirs to enjoy and now their getting upset because it hasn't ended how they wanted it to. It's easy when you're outside the club to get upset because a nice bloke lost his job, when you don't care if they go down it's irrelevant to you if they do. If they weren't prepared for it to turn sour they should never have got so emotionally involved in it in the first place. Actually its very very similar to people who moan at Arsenal fans for complaining about Wenger. This idea that they should not only be happy with top 4 and not challenging for titles but also be happy with never improving, never progressing, and continually never correcting the weaknesses and failings of previous season, because they aren't fighting the drop and the get champions league every year. It's ridiculous. In relative terms, why wouldn't Arsenal fans want to move forward, become a better team? It's another case of a club and it's fans being expected to accept their place.
Captain... Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 Ranieri earned the right to lead us down, not take us down. If we were fighting in every game, giving our all and yet failing due to brilliant opposition, terrible luck, injuries and poor refereeing then fair enough. Like Pearson 2 years ago, or Alex Neil and Dyche managing a team that gets relegated or is bottom doesn't mean you deserve to be sacked. The problem seemed to be that Ranieri with his team selection, tactics and inability to motivate the players was taking us down.
Webbo Posted 26 February 2017 Posted 26 February 2017 Someone asked for a cut and paste of Jonathon Northcott's article earlier. The satellite trucks and foreign television crews were back, Friday lunchtime, for a manager’s press conference at King Power stadium but not for dilly dongs, rather the death knell of a manager — and, some would have it, nothing less than sporting romance itself. Leicester: the club that changed the world’s view of modern football only to trick us and change in a way that merely re-emphasised the game’s deep treachery. That picture may stick. On Friday evening, poor Claudio Ranieri was outside his house in Stoneygate, smilingly accepting hugs from a mournful female fan and, from a bloke, a bottle of red wine in a Leicester City plastic bag. He issued a statement about his dream dying. That had been “to stay with Leicester City, the club I love, for always”. Jose Mourinho faced the media wearing the initials “CR” on his tracksuit. Via Twitter, Gary Lineker let it be known his tears were jerked. Leicester: a year ago, this was a land of miracles. Tomorrow is the anniversary of Leonardo Ulloa scoring against Norwich and the King Power’s celebrations causing a small local earthquake. Last time Liverpool visited, Jamie Vardy bagged goal of the season in front of a Hollywood producer who decided to turn his life story into a film. After, a fan got 5,000 signatories on a petition to make his girlfriend name their baby daughter “Vardy”. Now? “Disgrace!” concluded a message sent through official lines to the club after Ranieri’s sacking was made public at 8pm on Thursday. The sender was a foreign journalist. “INGLESI INGRATI” thundered La Gazzetta Dello Sport, who said: “Leicester, the club who, with Ranieri, became a prince, courted by the world’s media, return to being a normal frog.” It’s a great line. And they are right. And, don’t worry, Leicester know it. But while they have opened commercial offices in London and toured Los Angeles on the back of winning last season’s Premier League title, the club, an official said, had to think “of the 200 people who work here, and the core supporters” — not new fans or neutrals with a romantic, fleeting interest. Owners Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha and his son, Aiyawatt, are duty-free magnates but this was a decision taken for the natives not the tourists. Guus Hiddink, who could play a firefighting role, is the subject of speculation Lineker’s tears will dry and Mourinho will wear a different top today; for the Srivaddhanaprabhas it has to be about lasting issues, like top-flight survival. Under Ranieri, Leicester had won one and lost seven of their past 10 Premier League games, failing to score in the league in 2017, despite £80m spent to reinforce a title-winning squad, and they kick off against Liverpool down among the relegation contenders. The owners did what romantics will not: forget last season and just look at this. The absence, on social media, of goodwill messages for Ranieri from players was picked up on and significant. As was the nuance in how Craig Shakespeare described he and Ranieri’s farewell chat on Thursday: “A brief phone call where we exchanged views. But at the end we did thank each other.” A well-sourced reporter had “close friends” of Ranieri saying “the vast majority” of players were behind him, furthering the torrent of media blame towards an “ungrateful” squad for his demise. Another, who knows Ranieri well, pointed towards discord with Shakespeare in his analysis. There are always two sides. Stay “for always” at Leicester? Come on. Cuddly as Claudio can be, can he only be taken at face value? Last season, wasn’t that his rivals’ mistake? Players felt Shakespeare was isolated by Ranieri this season. Some also felt that Ranieri did little to keep Steve Walsh, who departed for Everton in summer. Walsh and Shakespeare were the assistants Ranieri inherited when he replaced Nigel Pearson — and the Pearson-Walsh-Shakespeare triumvirate built most of the squad, not just in terms of personnel but culture. Despite Pearson’s alpha male image, his way was to empower players and staff, encourage opinions, even defer to them on key issues like training schedules — hence the unusually “light” regime when Leicester, making the fewest changes, suffering the fewest injuries, won the title. They did full training just two days a week. and were just back from a week’s holiday a year ago. Ranieri had wanted to change things when he arrived but part of his genius was recognising he’d inherited a club where much already worked — Leicester survived under Pearson with seven wins from nine games. He listened to Shakespeare regarding training, and Walsh on recruitment: to replace Esteban Cambiasso, Ranieri signed Gokhan Inler but allowed Walsh his own candidate, N’Golo Kante. This season the collegiate style of management, lauded by the World Economic Forum last season, seemed gone. Players felt he communicated less. His habit — in contrast to Pearson’s workaholic culture — of leaving the training ground by 1.30pm began grating. Days off were cancelled and the training load increased — there was even a session on the morning of an FA Cup tie against Derby. As results declined, he transmitted suspicion (particularly unfounded in one case) about players’ off-field activities, causing umbrage. There were threats to hole them up in a hotel if they didn’t win games — “you don’t see your wife.” A constant changing of formation, line-up and tactics baffled. Shinji Okazaki said the team never lost spirit but became “confused what to do with it” and how to play without Kante. The January transfer window, and further outlay on Wilfred Ndidi, was supposed to bring clarity but in consecutive defeats against Manchester United and Swansea, Ranieri had to make two half-time substitutions in tacit admission his selection was wrong; changes at the interval or early in the second half were becoming common. Players felt they were going on field with too many instructions; all such a shame, because Ranieri’s use of Pearson’s template with only a sprinkling of “Italian tactics, my little tactics” seemed so clever last year. His preference for Ahmed Musa over Demarai Gray became a bone of contention. Gray is highly rated by the squad’s old lags not just for his ability but mentality, while Musa was struggling to adapt to English football. The away goal, in Wednesday’s 2-1 defeat in Seville, that gives Leicester a fighting chance of reaching the Champions League quarter- finals came after Gray replaced Musa and changed the game: teammates thought not starting Gray in the first place was “bizarre”. Dismissing Ranieri was decided before Seville — in the wake of a 2-0 defeat at Swansea, where the owners did not get the “bounce” hoped for from a bonding meal with players and now-sorry-looking vote of confidence in Ranieri. The club suggests that if Khun Vichai spoke to a couple of players on Thursday it was to inform them about a decision already taken, not to seek opinion. Player sources scotch the notion of a meeting where the squad sought Ranieri’s head. What is likely is the owners knew the dressing room concerns about their former manager. If “player power” was at work then that term, with relation to Leicester, needs to be properly understood. The title, remember, was won by a group deliberately empowered, whose strength of mind was their greatest asset, and the Srivaddhanaprabhas have close bonds with the significant number who have been there for four, five or more years. They are owners who stage social events for their squad and look after them on personal levels: they have an understanding what players are thinking without needing meetings. Their Thai-Buddhist background make them prize loyalty and generosity. On one level they deserted these principles by showing Ranieri none, on another they stuck to them by going with their older employees, the player group, and their perceived needs. What do the players want now? For many, Pearson back. It’s believed Leicester have gone a little way to exploring that option but that the reality is difficult to envisage, because of the emotive circumstances behind Pearson’s departure in summer 2015. Martin O’Neill has many friends, including director Jon Rudkin, still at the club from his time as manager. Roberto Mancini’s representatives have a line into Eduardo Macia, who replaced Walsh as recruitment head, but Mancini is eyeing the Milan job and Macia himself might now be under pressure: a Ranieri appointment and family friend, he and Rudkin presided over the frustrating January transfer window. Guus Hiddink, in another firefighter role, is the intriguing subject of Dutch speculation. Chelsea exploits may particularly impress the Srivaddhanaprabhas, who had a box at Stamford Bridge before owning Leicester. An extended stint for Shakespeare would be the next-best-thing to Pearson for players — and is a real possibility. “In selecting the next manager they should look at what made them good. Togetherness. Mentality. Happiness. The English style. Leicester is a very ordinary club without all that,” said a source with a strong handle on the thoughts of the dressing room. The fans loved Ranieri but also love their old players and respect the ownership, and bet on unity rather than rancour at the King Power tomorrow night. As Mourinho said, “you can never press delete” on what Ranieri did but he himself is part of the odd statistic that tells us four of the past seven Premier League champions sacked their manager within a year. It’s why Sir Alex Ferguson was the strangest, fiercest beast: achieving success, and knowing what to do after it, are such different things.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.