Rudkin

[volpeazzurro]

3 hours ago, Fox92 said:

We will be soon.

 

Our problems run deeper than just constantly sacking managers. Why aren't these people accountable for appointing these managers?

 

Acvountable for what exactly? Name one appointment that hasn't been a relative success in the given circumstances in very recent times?  Pearson got 2 promotions and a great escape.  Ranieri won the bloody Premiership for Christ's sake. Shakespeare, though exposed eventually, steadied the ship and we got to the quarter finals of the Champions league , then when in fear of relegation,  Puel at least rescued us from that. So ... how do you think you'd have done mate? Short of an Alex Ferguson coming to a small, fairly insignificant provincial side and staying for 20+ years what do we reasonably expect to attract. Thus far our owners and team seem to have done quite well in quite challenging and quickly changing circumstances I think.

[Fox92]

57 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Eriksson wasn't poor for us - if it hadn't been for the criminal start to the season under Sousa, we could've potentially reached the playoffs or even get promoted.

Then he got the sack in 2011-2012 after five wins, four draws and four losses in the league. Not exactly "poor", is it?

 

Given the resources and much we spent (on transfer fees, loan fees and player wages) I'd say it was.

[Fox92]

13 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

Acvountable for what exactly? Name one appointment that hasn't been a relative success in the given circumstances in very recent times?  Pearson got 2 promotions and a great escape.  Ranieri won the bloody Premiership for Christ's sake. Shakespeare, though exposed eventually, steadied the ship and we got to the quarter finals of the Champions league , then when in fear of relegation,  Puel at least rescued us from that. So ... how do you think you'd have done mate? Short of an Alex Ferguson coming to a small, fairly insignificant provincial side and staying for 20+ years what do we reasonably expect to attract. Thus far our owners and team seem to have done quite well in quite challenging and quickly changing circumstances I think.

Accountable for sacking managers they hired in the first place? (You are forgetting Sousa and Sven who were both appointed and then sacked). Pearson got one promotion under this ownership, not two. In fact, I believe, he left for Hull because our owne were taken to the Cardiff game alongside Sousa who was the next manager. Are you forgetting that too?

 

And accountable for the constant signings of poor players. Butland spoke about Stoke's poor recruitment - players they signed that were then sent out on loan, players that didn't live upto expectations. Rings a bell. 

 

Oh and, personally, I wouldn't have done anything because I'm not a football manager.

Edited 7 May 2018 by Fox92

[MC Prussian]

6 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Given the resources and much we spent (on transfer fees, loan fees and player wages) I'd say it was.

Yeah, but how much blame lay with Eriksson?

You can only spend as much as you're allowed to spend.

The owners were new to the game and thought "Let's chuck it at the big names", without spending too much thought about financial repercussions.

[BenTheFox]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Eriksson wasn't poor for us - if it hadn't been for the criminal start to the season under Sousa, we could've potentially reached the playoffs or even get promoted.

Then he got the sack in 2011-2012 after five wins, four draws and four losses in the league. Not exactly "poor", is it?

 

He's not remembered so much for his results, more so because most of his signings were bobbins. 

[The Wizard]

#Gethimout

[volpeazzurro]

42 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

Accountable for sacking managers they hired in the first place? (You are forgetting Sousa and Sven who were both appointed and then sacked). Pearson got one promotion under this ownership, not two. In fact, I believe, he left for Hull because our owne were taken to the Cardiff game alongside Sousa who was the next manager. Are you forgetting that too?

 

And accountable for the constant signings of poor players. Butland spoke about Stoke's poor recruitment - players they signed that were then sent out on loan, players that didn't live upto expectations. Rings a bell. 

 

Oh and, personally, I wouldn't have done anything because I'm not a football manager.

 

Sacking underperforming managers is a fact of life for any club, how many clubs haven't been there, be reasonable about it. I said recent past but if you want to bring up Sousa and Sven, were not most of us not quite excited about them at that time as crap as they turned out to be in the end?  You have a short selective memory and hindsight is a wonderful thing and after all, you and I aren't experts just armchair thinkers without the knowledge of what these people have had to hand at any given time on who's available and willing to come both managerial or player wise.

 

They also in a sense ate humble pie when they rehired Pearson and didn't let face or sentiment get in the way of good business. 

 

On recruitment, I absolutely agree with you.  We have bought, at huge cost, a mishmash of I'll thought out individuals amongst the odd jewel. Yet who should take the blame? Not all our director of football's  fault surely.  The much lauded Walsh is also to blame. Not exactly a shining success at Everton is he. What about if there was any managerial input?  (Though Ranieri in fairness denied any).What about the latest guy Macia? We really are guessing about who does what down there because we're on the outside looking in and on those grounds alone, supporters just aren't informed enough to shout for who's head should roll. 

 

Difficult to stand up for Puel now but, with that mishmash of egotistical players it must have been difficult at times to try and make them take on board new things and evaluate who can or can't do them let alone drop one of the in crowd if they can't do it, for fear of the much documented player power. For me, not being in the inner sanctum, any failure is of a collective nature but with a big suspicion against certain players.  Even then, are we really talking about failure? Following 2 promotions, a great escape and a Premiership title, quarter finals of Champions league and half way up the Premiership still,  a dose of reality perhaps?  There will always be fear and just as we see and appreciate the demise of teams like Stoke and West Brom,  I have a shrewd hunch our multimillion pound owners aren't exactly thick and unsighted on this nowdays, after all, unlike you and I, they have a few million invested in there!

[The Wizard]

We want Rudkin out ! we want Rudkin out..! Come on we can do this....

[MC Prussian]

4 minutes ago, BenTheFox said:

He's not remembered so much for his results, more so because most of his signings were bobbins. 

Highly debatable. In my books, he gets away with a rather positive summary:

 

Vassell and Bamba weren't bobbins, I'm not so sure about petit Ricardo in goal, though. Sol Bamba was entertaining to watch, very much so. I'll never forget his first goal in his first game for us in the cup match against Manchester City.

 

Eriksson shipped Fryatt out in January, and Matty never truly managed to rediscover his form with Hull and what followed.

 

Naughton, Davies, Cunningham, Bruma, Diomansy Kamara? All quality, shame Liam Rosenior had to end Cunningham's stint with us so prematurely.

Ben Mee? Well...

Yakubu? Definitely worth every pound penny.

Van Aanholt showed promise.

Danny Uchechi was a strange one.

 

The following season, he brought in Schmeichel, Nugent, Konchesky, Beckford, St. Ledger, Lee Peltier. All very shrewd signings at the time.

On the other hand, there is Matt Mills. Oh, dear... And also Michael Ball, who only played three League Cup matches for us. And then there's the sad case of Michael Johnson, the former Manchester City starlet.

Neil Danns started off well and then got more and more famous for his singer/songwriting skills.

 

[Rogstanley]

4 hours ago, Fox92 said:

You're missing Sousa (who was introduced to the owners by Milan and all went to the Cardiff game which pissed Pearson off hence he left) and Sven. Both were "big names" and poor for us.

 

I can't argue with the success of Pearson or Ranieri but the first was known to the club, well-known in fact, and the latter was a gamble but obviously worked so fair play.

 

 

You’ve twisted each and every appointment to fit your agenda there tbf.

 

There’s no real evidence the current owners had anything to do with Sousa but you’ll believe and repeat Chinese whispers because it’s suits your agenda.

 

Again Sven was hired with Mandaric as chairman and actually wasn’t that bad for us at all but you’ll make him out to be awful because it suits your agenda.

 

Pearson was a great appointment but no credit is due because he had been here before. What kind of logic is that?! His success doesn’t suit your agenda so you make up a seriously spurious reason as to why the appointment somehow doesn’t count.

 

Ranieri just a “gamble”, his success doesn’t suit your agenda so you claim it’s all luck.

 

Doesn’t seem like you’ll be happy with anything, tbh.

 

Are there any comparable clubs out there doing much better than us who you think have better a better record on managerial appointments? 

[inckley fox]

12 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Highly debatable. In my books, he gets away with a rather positive summary:

 

Vassell and Bamba weren't bobbins, I'm not so sure about petit Ricardo in goal, though. Sol Bamba was entertaining to watch, very much so. I'll never forget his first goal in his first game for us in the cup match against Manchester City.

 

Eriksson shipped Fryatt out in January, and Matty never truly managed to rediscover his form with Hull and what followed.

 

Naughton, Davies, Cunningham, Bruma, Diomansy Kamara? All quality, shame Liam Rosenior had to end Cunningham's stint with us so prematurely.

Ben Mee? Well...

Yakubu? Definitely worth every pound penny.

Van Aanholt showed promise.

Danny Uchechi was a strange one.

 

The following season, he brought in Schmeichel, Nugent, Konchesky, Beckford, St. Ledger, Lee Peltier. All very shrewd signings at the time.

On the other hand, there is Matt Mills. Oh, dear... And also Michael Ball, who only played three League Cup matches for us. And then there's the sad case of Michael Johnson, the former Manchester City starlet.

Neil Danns started off well and then got more and more famous for his singer/songwriting skills.

 

I'd debate some of this too! 

 

Firstly, I'd agree that the signings of Ricardo, Mills (a supposedly record-equalling fee at the time), Ball and Danns were all poor, as was the Johnson loan. But I think you're a bit kind to some of the others.

 

I never saw Beckford as a particularly shrewd signing, for one, and would debate that Bruma and Kamara were 'quality'. 

 

I'd also agree that he was right to ship out Fryatt, but he also let go of Hobbs who we initially struggled to replace.

 

As for his record on the pitch, he did pull Leicester out of the drop zone, but it was barely October and this was a side that had just finished 5th. A 10th place finish was decent, but he blew his shot at the play offs by over-doing the loans.

 

He then sent the wage bill through the roof and spent an extortionate amount for that league at that time - the second greatest net spend of any Leicester manager up to that point. Yes, he deserves credit for signing Schmeichel, Nugent and Konchesky, but there were a huge number of very costly mistakes which took us a long time to be rid of.

 

For each passable acquisition there was another heap of expensive dross. He was in charge for a year but you can name a team's worth of his rubbish. Ricardo or Kirkland in goal. Pantsil, Bruma, Mills and Ball across the back. Danns, Johnson and Fernandes in midfield. A front three of Bednar, Beckford, Kamara. It was the definition of a scattergun transfer policy.

 

The greatest single injection of funds we'd ever seen by any set of owners in our history had, for the most part, been wasted on an uneven mid-table side. And he was fired after we'd just slipped into the bottom half of the table and been hammered at home to Millwall. It wasn't a great success story.

 

Anyway... I was planning to keep  this on topic by drawing some sort of a tenuous analogy with Rudkin but now I'm not sure what that was meant to be. The only thing which Rudkin and Eriksson have in common, as far as I'm concerned, is that both are filed under 'Wasted Opportunities'.

[inckley fox]

1 hour ago, Rogstanley said:

You’ve twisted each and every appointment to fit your agenda there tbf.

 

There’s no real evidence the current owners had anything to do with Sousa but you’ll believe and repeat Chinese whispers because it’s suits your agenda.

 

Again Sven was hired with Mandaric as chairman and actually wasn’t that bad for us at all but you’ll make him out to be awful because it suits your agenda.

 

Pearson was a great appointment but no credit is due because he had been here before. What kind of logic is that?! His success doesn’t suit your agenda so you make up a seriously spurious reason as to why the appointment somehow doesn’t count.

 

Ranieri just a “gamble”, his success doesn’t suit your agenda so you claim it’s all luck.

 

Doesn’t seem like you’ll be happy with anything, tbh.

 

Are there any comparable clubs out there doing much better than us who you think have better a better record on managerial appointments? 

I'd agree that it's a very unfair to strip the board of credit in this way, but you can still ask some questions of their record.

 

For instance, back in 2010 Pearson said that he was aware of potential new owners being shown around the club before the Cardiff play-off semi, and not being invited to meet them. He also knew that Sousa was in attendance and quit because he felt his future wasn't guaranteed.

 

The current board approved Sven's appointment and bankrolled him in a spending spree of over £8,000,000 net, which was an obscene sum for the second tier at that time, especially when the end product was a mid-table side. A lot of his successor's work lay in reducing that wage bill and selling off his substandard signings.

 

And yes, his successor was the man who'd been edged out of the club during the transition 15 months earlier - so I can see why people might be inclined to wonder about how much credit King Power deserve for that.

 

In Ranieri's case, he was the first high profile manager to publicly declare his interest in the job, and was appointed within a week or so of that. I don't see why this should detract from what a good appointment he was, rather that we weren't inundated with quality candidates so a careful analysis of the manager's credentials might not have been needed.

 

I suppose more questions will be asked over the way Ranieri's sacking was handled, or the fact that we'd just undergone the biggest spending spree in our history without a Head of Recruitment at the club and taken half a season to replace our key player. Was the problem at managerial level or at cheque-signing level? 

 

More questions could be asked of the three-year contract for Shakespeare sandwiched in between a home pasting to Spurs and Shakespeare's sacking a few months later, after a tough start, the bungled Silva signing and a predictably disappointing run of form. Or signing Puel based on what he did at Southampton, only to fire him when he achieved pretty much exactly what he achieved at Southampton. 

 

The board have been superb for us and even Rudkin has got his fair share of things right. But their managerial recruitment and efficiency in dealing with players, contracts and transfers don't entirely fill me with confidence.

[Col city fan]

7 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Highly debatable. In my books, he gets away with a rather positive summary:

 

Vassell and Bamba weren't bobbins, I'm not so sure about petit Ricardo in goal, though. Sol Bamba was entertaining to watch, very much so. I'll never forget his first goal in his first game for us in the cup match against Manchester City.

 

Eriksson shipped Fryatt out in January, and Matty never truly managed to rediscover his form with Hull and what followed.

 

Naughton, Davies, Cunningham, Bruma, Diomansy Kamara? All quality, shame Liam Rosenior had to end Cunningham's stint with us so prematurely.

Ben Mee? Well...

Yakubu? Definitely worth every pound penny.

Van Aanholt showed promise.

Danny Uchechi was a strange one.

 

The following season, he brought in Schmeichel, Nugent, Konchesky, Beckford, St. Ledger, Lee Peltier. All very shrewd signings at the time.

On the other hand, there is Matt Mills. Oh, dear... And also Michael Ball, who only played three League Cup matches for us. And then there's the sad case of Michael Johnson, the former Manchester City starlet.

Neil Danns started off well and then got more and more famous for his singer/songwriting skills.

 

Wtf?

St.Ledger and Beckford were terrible signings for this club. Both no doubt on silly money.

Peltier too was a disaster for us.

[MC Prussian]

2 hours ago, Col city fan said:

Wtf?

St.Ledger and Beckford were terrible signings for this club. Both no doubt on silly money.

Peltier too was a disaster for us.

In context, St. Ledger only turned out to be "terrible" once Eriksson was gone. Had a bust-up with Pearson, was transfer listed, then brought back into the squad because of lack of options at centre-back, did surprisingly well, then missed large parts of the following season because of knee and hamstring injuries.

 

Beckford did convince me at the start of his time at LCFC, although the now infamous "only weak people feel pressure" moment right after we signed him was rather irritating. Maybe underwhelming in the league, but did score a hattrick in the FA Cup and his downfall started in his second season, when it was obvious he thought he was too good for us.

If at all, put the blame on the club who paid big money for a then-Premier League striker, raising expectations amongst our fanbase (same as Waghorn). Must've had a good agent, too - was on reportedly £30k a week. A talented footballer indeed, but his attitude and inability to commit to the opponent and put his body in where it hurts cost him.

 

Peltier started off well, too. Scored on his debut and completed 40 league matches in 2011-12. He was our No.1 right-back at the time, remember. The other option was John Paintsil.

[Col city fan]

2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

In context, St. Ledger only turned out to be "terrible" once Eriksson was gone. Had a bust-up with Pearson, was transfer listed, then brought back into the squad because of lack of options at centre-back, did surprisingly well, then missed large parts of the following season because of knee and hamstring injuries.

 

Beckford did convince me at the start of his time at LCFC, although the now infamous "only weak people feel pressure" moment right after we signed him was rather irritating. Maybe underwhelming in the league, but did score a hattrick in the FA Cup and his downfall started in his second season, when it was obvious he thought he was too good for us.

If at all, put the blame on the club who paid big money for a then-Premier League striker, raising expectations amongst our fanbase (same as Waghorn). Must've had a good agent, too - was on reportedly £30k a week. A talented footballer indeed, but his attitude and inability to commit to the opponent and put his body in where it hurts cost him.

 

Peltier started off well, too. Scored on his debut and completed 40 league matches in 2011-12. He was our No.1 right-back at the time, remember. The other option was John Paintsil.

To be fair, I had high hopes for Peltier. Much higher than for Beckford who was possibly one of the laziest strikers I’d seen at City.

It was just a funny time for the club I guess. For every Kasper, there was a duff signing made too.

[MC Prussian]

8 hours ago, inckley fox said:

I never saw Beckford as a particularly shrewd signing, for one, and would debate that Bruma and Kamara were 'quality'. 

 

I'd also agree that he was right to ship out Fryatt, but he also let go of Hobbs who we initially struggled to replace.

 

As for his record on the pitch, he did pull Leicester out of the drop zone, but it was barely October and this was a side that had just finished 5th. A 10th place finish was decent, but he blew his shot at the play offs by over-doing the loans.

 

He then sent the wage bill through the roof and spent an extortionate amount for that league at that time - the second greatest net spend of any Leicester manager up to that point. Yes, he deserves credit for signing Schmeichel, Nugent and Konchesky, but there were a huge number of very costly mistakes which took us a long time to be rid of.

 

For each passable acquisition there was another heap of expensive dross. He was in charge for a year but you can name a team's worth of his rubbish. Ricardo or Kirkland in goal. Pantsil, Bruma, Mills and Ball across the back. Danns, Johnson and Fernandes in midfield. A front three of Bednar, Beckford, Kamara. It was the definition of a scattergun transfer policy.

 

The greatest single injection of funds we'd ever seen by any set of owners in our history had, for the most part, been wasted on an uneven mid-table side. And he was fired after we'd just slipped into the bottom half of the table and been hammered at home to Millwall. It wasn't a great success story.

 

Anyway... I was planning to keep  this on topic by drawing some sort of a tenuous analogy with Rudkin but now I'm not sure what that was meant to be. The only thing which Rudkin and Eriksson have in common, as far as I'm concerned, is that both are filed under 'Wasted Opportunities'.

"Heap of expensive dross" is pushing it. The amount of good, quality players is/was bigger than the ones that turned out to be failures or the ones that didn't have an impact.

We can agree on the ludicrous amount of money spent for a Championship side.

 

I think Kamara was a quality signing at the time, even if he only played very few games at the end of the 2010-11 season, you could see his talent. Worked hard up front, tracking back a lot.

Bednar? Well, he came with a Premier League reputation and a rather decent goalscoring record for West Brom in the Championship. Just wouldn't work out for him at the Walkers/KP.

 

For all the criticism aimed at Beckford - anybody remember Nathan Delfouneso? Pearson signing...

 

As for Kirkland, he was unfortunate with his back injury.

Edited 8 May 2018 by MC Prussian

[Rogstanley]

8 hours ago, inckley fox said:

I'd agree that it's a very unfair to strip the board of credit in this way, but you can still ask some questions of their record.

 

For instance, back in 2010 Pearson said that he was aware of potential new owners being shown around the club before the Cardiff play-off semi, and not being invited to meet them. He also knew that Sousa was in attendance and quit because he felt his future wasn't guaranteed.

 

The current board approved Sven's appointment and bankrolled him in a spending spree of over £8,000,000 net, which was an obscene sum for the second tier at that time, especially when the end product was a mid-table side. A lot of his successor's work lay in reducing that wage bill and selling off his substandard signings.

 

And yes, his successor was the man who'd been edged out of the club during the transition 15 months earlier - so I can see why people might be inclined to wonder about how much credit King Power deserve for that.

 

In Ranieri's case, he was the first high profile manager to publicly declare his interest in the job, and was appointed within a week or so of that. I don't see why this should detract from what a good appointment he was, rather that we weren't inundated with quality candidates so a careful analysis of the manager's credentials might not have been needed.

 

I suppose more questions will be asked over the way Ranieri's sacking was handled, or the fact that we'd just undergone the biggest spending spree in our history without a Head of Recruitment at the club and taken half a season to replace our key player. Was the problem at managerial level or at cheque-signing level? 

 

More questions could be asked of the three-year contract for Shakespeare sandwiched in between a home pasting to Spurs and Shakespeare's sacking a few months later, after a tough start, the bungled Silva signing and a predictably disappointing run of form. Or signing Puel based on what he did at Southampton, only to fire him when he achieved pretty much exactly what he achieved at Southampton. 

 

The board have been superb for us and even Rudkin has got his fair share of things right. But their managerial recruitment and efficiency in dealing with players, contracts and transfers don't entirely fill me with confidence.

Yeah of course I’m more than happy to concede that not every decision has been perfect, although considering the appointments up to Ranieri culminated in is winning the league they can’t have been far off.

 

I think it comes down to expectations. I think we’re comparable to about 25 other clubs, from outside the top-6 in the premier league down to about half way down the championship, who all have a similar claim on premier league consistency and the occasional trophy.

 

If a lot of those clubs were doing better than us then complaints would be valid, but the fact is that no comparable club other than Burnley has shown as much improvement as we over over the last five years (and even Burnley are nowhere near enjoying the success we’ve had). No club has consistently made successful managerial appointments, no club has consistently made successful signings. Is it realistic to expect us to be the only club to do those things? Not for me. It’s evidently nigh on impossible for a club like ours to break into the top-6 and stay there for any length of time these days, that’s why no comparable club has done it. Realistically we’re doing about as well as can ever be expected, imo.

[m4DD0gg]

15 hours ago, LittlethorpeFox said:

Ok so let’s look at the 4 managers they appointed. 

 

Pearson - success

Ranieiri - success

Shakespear - right man at the right time, should have made a change in the summer (they did try to go for Wagner, fact)

Puel - got us out of trouble but gone poorly since Feb. Still I wouldn’t say he’s been a disaster - Pardew, Moyes Man Utd, Hodgson Liverpool, Villa Remi garde . They’re true disasters.

 

you’d sack the board for that managerial record? Tell me a Club with 4 most recent appointments better than that... ?? 

Its not as black and white as that.

 

Whilst Pearson was a success he was a PR disaster.

Ranieri was and is a legend but had to go.

Shakespeare was pure naivety.

Puel is a waste of space and highlights our poor structure between playing staff and owners.

 

Thats before we even mention our disastrous transfer records of the last 2 seasons, only Stokes is worse and look whats happened to them.

[Foxy-Lady]

20 hours ago, Babylon said:

It's amazing what winning the league, finishing top 10 and 12th can do for your faith in someone.

It was Pearson's team and his established back room set-up won us the League.  It was NOTHING to do with Rudkin who was in his 1st year in the role of DoF.

 

Rudkins biggest job is/has been to rebuild the Pearson team that won us the PL, many of whom now need to be moved on/out (and some of who may want to leave....?). Question is, do you have the faith and confidence in him to do that based on our recent hit& miss transfer history...

 

Consider this, with all our current riches, we are currently planning a NEW £80m training facility (part of the cost will be offset by sale of Belvoir Drive) + a stadium expansion to 40k (is this really necessary based on current attendance trends?)

Add in the fact that we will need to invest very heavily in a squad revamp (mostly offset by sale of Mahrez + 'others'...) so we could be starting next season with a NEW manager and a fresh squad of players and based on our recent record in the transfer market, it is not unreasonable to suggest we may struggle to maintain our mid-table position next season.....especially if Vardy decides the time is right for him for one final big career move after the WC this summer?

We no longer have the one-off revenue streams from the Premiership title season and the Champions League so our income will fall massively next season and we will no longer be considered as one of Europe's wealthiest clubs

 

Are you really sure that Rudkin is the right man to have at the helm with all this expenditure planned in the face of falling revenues as my biggest fear is that we might all be looking back in a few years wondering what happened to all the money.....and potentially ending up like Stoke, WBA and Southampton.

 

It may all sound rather alarmist.....but im pretty sure Stoke fans would have said the same a few years ago when they were Top10 and in the FA Cup Final VS Man.City......having just built an expensive new training ground!

 

"What could possibly go wrong from where we are today...??"

[Babylon]

3 minutes ago, Foxy-Lady said:

It was Pearson's team and his established back room set-up won us the League.  It was NOTHING to do with Rudkin who was in his 1st year in the role of DoF.

He was involved with the selection of Ranieri as Manager, without Ranieri we wouldn't have won the league IMO. So to suggest it had "NOTHING" to do with him is a bit wide of the mark.

 

I'm no fan of Rudkin particularly, but I can understand why they back him when his remit has probably been exceeded.

[Foxy-Lady]

3 minutes ago, Babylon said:

He was involved with the selection of Ranieri as Manager, without Ranieri we wouldn't have won the league IMO. So to suggest it had "NOTHING" to do with him is a bit wide of the mark.

 

I'm no fan of Rudkin particularly, but I can understand why they back him when his remit has probably been exceeded.

I take your point on the Ranieri selection BUT it was still largely Pearson's team and back room structure that won us that title....and that had pretty much nothing to do with Rudkin.

There were many, many parts to our PL success in 2016 and the Ranieri appointment was not the key one for me

[ARM1968]

Ruskin is one of those irritating pricks you meet in life who have managed to manipulate and engratiate their way up the ladder without actually having any notable skills or success to back it. He's a joke, but for some reason the Thai's can't see it. 

[FrankieADZ]

think the only way we'll get rid of Rudkin is if hes not let back in the country after going on holiday or something,

 

someone get on to passport control 

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, Foxy-Lady said:

It was Pearson's team and his established back room set-up won us the League.  It was NOTHING to do with Rudkin who was in his 1st year in the role of DoF.

 

Rudkins biggest job is/has been to rebuild the Pearson team that won us the PL, many of whom now need to be moved on/out (and some of who may want to leave....?). Question is, do you have the faith and confidence in him to do that based on our recent hit& miss transfer history...

 

Consider this, with all our current riches, we are currently planning a NEW £80m training facility (part of the cost will be offset by sale of Belvoir Drive) + a stadium expansion to 40k (is this really necessary based on current attendance trends?)

Add in the fact that we will need to invest very heavily in a squad revamp (mostly offset by sale of Mahrez + 'others'...) so we could be starting next season with a NEW manager and a fresh squad of players and based on our recent record in the transfer market, it is not unreasonable to suggest we may struggle to maintain our mid-table position next season.....especially if Vardy decides the time is right for him for one final big career move after the WC this summer?

We no longer have the one-off revenue streams from the Premiership title season and the Champions League so our income will fall massively next season and we will no longer be considered as one of Europe's wealthiest clubs

 

Are you really sure that Rudkin is the right man to have at the helm with all this expenditure planned in the face of falling revenues as my biggest fear is that we might all be looking back in a few years wondering what happened to all the money.....and potentially ending up like Stoke, WBA and Southampton.

 

It may all sound rather alarmist.....but im pretty sure Stoke fans would have said the same a few years ago when they were Top10 and in the FA Cup Final VS Man.City......having just built an expensive new training ground!

 

"What could possibly go wrong from where we are today...??"

Bang on, get this horrid little Herbert out our club NOW!!!!!!

[Fox92]

13 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

You’ve twisted each and every appointment to fit your agenda there tbf.

 

There’s no real evidence the current owners had anything to do with Sousa but you’ll believe and repeat Chinese whispers because it’s suits your agenda.

 

Again Sven was hired with Mandaric as chairman and actually wasn’t that bad for us at all but you’ll make him out to be awful because it suits your agenda.

 

Pearson was a great appointment but no credit is due because he had been here before. What kind of logic is that?! His success doesn’t suit your agenda so you make up a seriously spurious reason as to why the appointment somehow doesn’t count.

 

Ranieri just a “gamble”, his success doesn’t suit your agenda so you claim it’s all luck.

 

Doesn’t seem like you’ll be happy with anything, tbh.

 

Are there any comparable clubs out there doing much better than us who you think have better a better record on managerial appointments? 

 

It's not chinese whispers. Pearson cleared this up when he first joined Hull, there will be an article somewhere but this is from wiki: 

 

Quote

In the summer of 2010, Mandaric showed a consortium of potential club buyers round the club without Pearson's permission and invited Paulo Sousa to the second leg of the play-off semi final.

 

Sven's spent loads of cash on transfer signings, loan fees and player wages. With all that investement we should have been near the top of the league but in fact we never even got into the top 6 in all Sven's time here.

 

I did claim Ranieri was a gamble but I also claimed it worked. I also posted "fair play" so there's no agenda here.

 

I question the constant sackings and I question contracts too. Shakespeare given a three year contract and Ranieri given a contract extension.... then sacked. Puel given a three year contract...

 

I will be happy with stability. Stoke have survived 10 years in the league with stability - Fair play Hughes was sacked (but did finish top 10 for three years running) and Pulis got them to FA Cup final and Europe but was let go at the end of his contract. I think that's something what we should be looking for - I'd take a top 10 finish if we got to cup finals. I know Stoke have finally gone down but I think that's where we are going anyway if we don't have stability.

 

Edited 8 May 2018 by Fox92