Ambition and striving to always get better.

[Mickyblueeyes]

There's been a few interesting articles in the Sunday papers today, to do with Chelsea and it's rise from a small football team to the major force it is now. I've chosen the Daily Mail one to post here simply because it's got Frank Sinclair contributing:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4304834/How-Chelsea-s-1994-FA-Cup-defeat-led-Roman-Abramovich.html

 

What's interesting is that just over 20 years ago, Chelsea couldn't compete with a team like Arsenal on the potential signing of Dennis Bergkamp. The signing of Ruud Gullit and reaction, was not too different to how we received Esteban Cambiasso. 

 

My point is there's been a common assumption that because we are Leicester City and have always been a yo-yo club we should succumb to that for the remainder of our existence. But why? For the first time we have owners who really do put there money where there mouth is. Excellent facilities and a decent size stadium. Plus an image that has finally put us on the map. Why shouldn't our ambition be to aim higher than where we "should be"?

 

Our owners (and some fans) have been heavily criticised for wanting more than what had been served up this year but judging by some of the quotes in that article we aren't the first team to do it. 

 

Under good management at all levels, who knows where we will get to.

[m4DD0gg]

4 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

There's been a few interesting articles in the Sunday papers today, to do with Chelsea and it's rise from a small football team to the major force it is now. I've chosen the Daily Mail one to post here simply because it's got Frank Sinclair contributing:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4304834/How-Chelsea-s-1994-FA-Cup-defeat-led-Roman-Abramovich.html

 

What's interesting is that just over 20 years ago, Chelsea couldn't compete with a team like Arsenal on the potential signing of Dennis Bergkamp. The signing of Ruud Gullit and reaction, was not too different to how we received Esteban Cambiasso. 

 

My point is there's been a common assumption that because we are Leicester City and have always been a yo-yo club we should succumb to that for the remainder of our existence. But why? For the first time we have owners who really do put there money where there mouth is. Excellent facilities and a decent size stadium. Plus an image that has finally put us on the map. Why shouldn't our ambition be to aim higher than where we "should be"?

 

Our owners (and some fans) have been heavily criticised for wanting more than what had been served up this year but judging by some of the quotes in that article we aren't the first team to do it. 

 

Under good management at all levels, who knows where we will get to.

Think the difference is the £1 billion their owner has invested.

[joachim1965]

Unfortunately I think we missed our big chance this year to really push on and take our club to the next level.

[Finnegan]

15 minutes ago, m4DD0gg said:

Think the difference is the £1 billion their owner has invested.

 

Think the point is that they had to start somewhere.

 

That and our owners have demonstrated you can have success without over spending.

 

It's a valid point and one a lot of people have made on here. At the end of the day, it's just the press pandering to the big clubs because that's who the majority of people support.

 

People don't want to hear a rational, sensible argument about how Leicester City are a potential growing force in football and how our owners are rightfully disappointed that we failed to use last season as a spring board to bigger things.

 

They want drama, they want to be sold some cheesy villain piece where upstart Leicester are put back in their place and go back to their grotty little championship and quit with the delusions of grandeur.

 

They then want to turn the page and actually believe Bale IS going to United this time and City really ARE getting Messi at the end of his contract because #bestleagueintheworld.

[Crinklyfox]

51 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

There's been a few interesting articles in the Sunday papers today, to do with Chelsea and it's rise from a small football team to the major force it is now. I've chosen the Daily Mail one to post here simply because it's got Frank Sinclair contributing:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4304834/How-Chelsea-s-1994-FA-Cup-defeat-led-Roman-Abramovich.html

 

What's interesting is that just over 20 years ago, Chelsea couldn't compete with a team like Arsenal on the potential signing of Dennis Bergkamp. The signing of Ruud Gullit and reaction, was not too different to how we received Esteban Cambiasso. 

 

My point is there's been a common assumption that because we are Leicester City and have always been a yo-yo club we should succumb to that for the remainder of our existence. But why? For the first time we have owners who really do put there money where there mouth is. Excellent facilities and a decent size stadium. Plus an image that has finally put us on the map. Why shouldn't our ambition be to aim higher than where we "should be"?

 

Our owners (and some fans) have been heavily criticised for wanting more than what had been served up this year but judging by some of the quotes in that article we aren't the first team to do it. 

 

Under good management at all levels, who knows where we will get to.

Quite right.  We are not bound by our history, the future is there to be made.  The Football League has many clubs that were once great and have now fallen on harder times, and others that have risen from obscurity to become well known.  

 

Our rise has been spectacular but without the foundations to sustain it.  The owners have ambition, without which our future would be imperilled, and provided that we can survive this season I see no reason why we should not continue to build our club to be more regularly successful than it has been.

[Mickyblueeyes]

1 hour ago, m4DD0gg said:

Think the difference is the £1 billion their owner has invested.

That's the point of the entire debate is it not? Chelsea had significant investment which has allowed them to enjoy some of the best infrastructure and facilities the world over. Should Chelsea settle with being 15th in the league (where they were before Hoddle took over) just because some of there history suggests that's what is there rightful position? 

 

With investment, ambition and continued growth, they now sit on top perch. They certainly haven't held that position before. Hence the Liverpool chant "**** off Chelsea FC, you don't have any history".

 

There is no reason why we should be happy to stay put. Our investment compared to the vast majority of clubs around us and even some cases below, does not compare. 

 

To quote a former manager: "slowly, Slowly".

 

[Matt]

We won the league, we had our chance, we threw it away.

 

That's not to say we can't build on it, we can become a top half club on the fringes of the top 6, but we've made it hard for ourselves, I said it in the thread discussing where Ranieri went wrong, when we were out our strongest, had most to offer, had carrot's to dangle we actually got weaker not just in players but backrooms staff.

[coolhandfox]

At the end of the day, you can buy success as Chelsea, Man City, Blackburn has shown! 

 

There a reason, that Man U, Man C, Chelski keep winning the title and its money to buy the best player and managers.

 

We are the only team to buck the trend in the PL years! 

[urban.spaceman]

It was always Vichai and Top's ambition for us to become a top top club and challenge for silverware - they said when we were promoted that they wanted us to reach the top 6 in a few years and to qualify for Europe.

 

And then last season happened - not only did it shock the whole world but it took us by surprise too. We were always going to struggle a bit but the manner of it was so disheartening and sadly Claudio had to go.

 

Whoever they get in the summer will be a massive statement of their ambitions. 

[Bossman Blessed It]

 

1 hour ago, Matt said:

We won the league, we had our chance, we threw it away.

 

That's not to say we can't build on it, we can become a top half club on the fringes of the top 6, but we've made it hard for ourselves, I said it in the thread discussing where Ranieri went wrong, when we were out our strongest, had most to offer, had carrot's to dangle we actually got weaker not just in players but backrooms staff.

 

So we've already won the best league in the world without having to spend anything at all. We jumped several stages in the development process of a club. Bare in mind we broke our own transfer record 3 times last summer. We signed a midfielder who we'd scouted for a long time, but injury has let him down. We signed a 23 year old striker with good champions league experience for his age, who could easily become a useful talent for us in the future. We also signed one of the most prolific goal scorers in Europe for £30 million, who again, could also come very good for us when his injuries clear up. I agree that Ranieri and potentially some of the attitudes of players have meant that we haven't quite secured a comfortable league position - but we won our Champions League group and are currently a 1-0 win away from the quarter final. Again, I agree that we had a carrot to dangle last summer, but the players we brought in could easily become integral parts of our future growth in securing ourselves as a top 8 team. Two sides to every coin; remaining positive about the fact that we're still the current champions and made it to the last 16 of the CL is not a backwards step in my opinion. 

[Tielemans63]

As the only decent club in the Midlands (exc. maybe Stoke) right now and with a potentially huge fanbase in places like Northants, Warwickshire, Lincolnshire etc there's no reason why, with continued investment, we can't become a Midlands powerhouse and be competing at least for the Top 6 regularly- I honestly believe that.

[volpeazzurro]

They are also in London. Who wants to come to this boil on the arse of a city. Think of the money Middlesbrough and Newcastle had to throw at players to try and get them to go there in the past. Players will always firstly want to go to Real Madrid, Barcelona, Man Utd or Liverpool etc first followed by almost any other London Club, it's the way of football. Even having become well known for the great escape and then even the Premiership didn't attract much than a very overpriced half decent player like Slimani. 

[MarriedaLeicesterGirl]

2 hours ago, volpeazzurro said:

They are also in London. Who wants to come to this boil on the arse of a city. Think of the money Middlesbrough and Newcastle had to throw at players to try and get them to go there in the past. Players will always firstly want to go to Real Madrid, Barcelona, Man Utd or Liverpool etc first followed by almost any other London Club, it's the way of football. Even having become well known for the great escape and then even the Premiership didn't attract much than a very overpriced half decent player like Slimani. 

I think they went for Slimani because they thought the CL group was really, really winnable, and wanted firepower for the next round. Let’s face it, Sheffield Wednesday would have advanced in that group.

As for London, the lads don't seem to have much trouble getting down there 2-3 times a week.

Despite this year’s hardships, I think it is impressive the club kept all its players last summer, bar one. And we might still keep Mahrez and Vardy: After this season, few will spend that much on them, nor match their current wages 

It is interesting we are playing Sevilla on Tuseday. Because that is supposed to be the 'next step' for Leicester: Be like Sevilla. Hovering outside the top clubs, getting into Europe, making Cup runs. Because of the money in the Premier League, and how it is divided, an English Sevilla can use that as a stepping stone to challenge for titles. You see that with Tottenham, and you see Everton and West Ham trying to make the push.