The owners.......

[Webbo]

The owner before these appointed Martin Allen, the board before him, Rob Kelly and the board before them, Peter Taylor.

 

All clubs make bad appointments at times. Man U appointed Van Gaal and David Moyes. Both good appointments on the face of it but both failed. Scolari won the World Cup but didn't last a year at Chelsea. Don't over analyse these things. Sacking managers isn't unique to us.

[1972 Fox]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The owner before these appointed Martin Allen, the board before him, Rob Kelly and the board before them, Peter Taylor.

 

All clubs make bad appointments at times. Man U appointed Van Gaal and David Moyes. Both good appointments on the face of it but both failed. Scolari won the World Cup but didn't last a year at Chelsea. Don't over analyse these things. Sacking managers isn't unique to us.

Mandaric appointed both of these?

[Webbo]

Just now, Blue Fox 72 said:

Mandaric appointed both of these?

Thinking back you might be right. Did the consortium appoint Levein?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

52 minutes ago, Osavo said:

I don't question their motives at all, they obviously want what's best for the club and are willing to invest large amounts of money to achieve success. But you're right, some of the managerial appointments since they arrived have been very poor, in fact out of 6 appointments, only two have been successful (Pearson and Ranieri) and Pearson was a man they had previously pushed out of the club. 

 

However, I don't think the appointments can be completely put down to them. I think, personally, they have been badly advised, and through naïvety have allowed Rudkin to achieve a position of power far above his station. He has weedled his way into their 'inner-circle' if you like, something which he did I believe around 14-15, when he began sitting up in the stands with them? They have placed too much trust in him to make footballing appointments, however they did it mainly because they felt he was a man who knew the club and could do right by it. What they failed to consider was the fact he had no previous directing experience and was essentially just a youth football coach.

 

So no, I don't question the owners. I question the people around them at board level, Rudkin, Macia, et al. They are responsible for the bad appointments and shocking transfer business.

 

Depends how you define success and if you also give credit for sacking at the right moments. 

 

Pearson: easy one, we can agree that was a success - and also no option with the sacking (both second spell - extra credit given for going back to a manager? That's a brave decision)

Ranieri: another easy one, they got the right man at what could have been a difficult time, despite many doubting at first. Sacking - also the right moment, we were in danger of relegation. 

Shakespear: We avoided relegation / got to the Quarters with him - you could deem it as a successful short term appointment. Mistake was giving him the job full time - quickly rectified. 

Puel: We are no longer in a relegation fight and that was the danger when appointed (regardless of where you stand on where we were in the table. We still needed points to pull fully away). So you could also view this as a successful short term appointment - and if he is dispensed with, there's plenty of argument to say that's the right decision too. 

 

So in my mind, that's 7 decisions in a row that have proved to put the benefit of the club first - with the result of a potential 8th decision still to be seen.  

 

 

Edited 29 April 2018 by DJ Barry Hammond

[Osavo]

19 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Depends how you define success and if you also give credit for sacking at the right moments. 

 

Pearson: easy one, we can agree that was a success - and also no option with the sacking (both second spell - extra credit given for going back to a manager? That's a brave decision)

Ranieri: another easy one, they got the right man at what could have been a difficult time, despite many doubting at first. Sacking - also the right moment, we were in danger of relegation. 

Shakespear: We avoided relegation / got to the Quarters with him - you could deem it as a successful short term appointment. Mistake was giving him the job full time - quickly rectified. 

Puel: We are no longer in a relegation fight and that was the danger when appointed (regardless of where you stand on where we were in the table. We still needed points to pull fully away). So you could also view this as a successful short term appointment - and if he is dispensed with, there's plenty of argument to say that's the right decision too. 

 

So in my mind, that's 7 decisions in a row that have proved to put the benefit of the club first - with the result of a potential 8th decision still to be seen.  

 

 

 

Short-termism ia not good for a football club though, and eventually it will backfire as it did with West Brom and Pardew. Both Puel and Shakespeare got us out of relegation danger with some solid early form (especially Shakespeare), but proved incapable of keeping that form up. I would put that down to new manager bounce, rather than classifying it as 'success'. I don't think anyone can honestly say that Shakespeare and Puel were successful appointments, despite both achieving a decent run of form early in their tenures.

 

Also, the contracts handed out to Shakespeare and Puel were what, three years each? If they had been viewed as short-term they would've been given two years maximum. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

@Osavo

 

3 year deals are the norm - a two year deal or less can shout ‘short-term’ and cause problems for a manager before they’ve got going.

 

And I wouldn’t say either Shakeu or Puel we’re appointed as short-term fixes at the time.

 

Its also worth noting, that new manager bounce doesn’t always occur.

[Bristol fox ....]

1 hour ago, Matt_Lcfc said:

Like I said they’ve done unbelievable amounts to this club.

With bigger and better things to come

Edited 29 April 2018 by Bristol fox ....

[Sol thewall Bamba]

A lot of people attribute all of our recent success to them, so surely some responsibility lies with them for the not so good decisions/appointments? 

 

Who continues to appoint and promote Rudkin? 

[Kitchandro]

 

51 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Depends how you define success and if you also give credit for sacking at the right moments. 

 

Pearson: easy one, we can agree that was a success - and also no option with the sacking (both second spell - extra credit given for going back to a manager? That's a brave decision)

Ranieri: another easy one, they got the right man at what could have been a difficult time, despite many doubting at first. Sacking - also the right moment, we were in danger of relegation. 

Shakespear: We avoided relegation / got to the Quarters with him - you could deem it as a successful short term appointment. Mistake was giving him the job full time - quickly rectified. 

Puel: We are no longer in a relegation fight and that was the danger when appointed (regardless of where you stand on where we were in the table. We still needed points to pull fully away). So you could also view this as a successful short term appointment - and if he is dispensed with, there's plenty of argument to say that's the right decision too. 

 

So in my mind, that's 7 decisions in a row that have proved to put the benefit of the club first - with the result of a potential 8th decision still to be seen.  

 

 

It hasn't been rectified - we attempted to replace Shakespeare with someone considered 'safe hands' because of the mess we were in when he was sacked and because of that we've wasted this entire season. We're still stagnating/going backwards. The decision to keep Shakespeare on past May could be the worst decision they ever made unless we replace Puel now and go with a totally different kind of manager.

 

Believe me, we are slowly sliding now and before you know it we'll be perennial stugglers. This is how it starts. We need to make the next appointment an ambitious one, because another supposed 'safe hands' will see us go further backwards.

[The Wizard]

Simple answer - No, ...... Looking at most clubs we are extremely lucky.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

7 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

 

It hasn't been rectified - we attempted to replace Shakespeare with someone considered 'safe hands' because of the mess we were in when he was sacked and because of that we've wasted this entire season. We're still stagnating/going backwards. The decision to keep Shakespeare on past May could be the worst decision they ever made unless we replace Puel now and go with a totally different kind of manager.

 

Believe me, we are slowly sliding now and before you know it we'll be perennial stugglers. This is how it starts. We need to make the next appointment an ambitious one, because another supposed 'safe hands' will see us go further backwards.

 

I agree keeping Shakey on was a mistake - made my feelings about that clear at the time. He just didn’t have the look or feel of a manager.

 

I think Puel was appointed largely because he was deemed the best available at the time - with a hope things could go well. 

 

But as you say, I think it’s important the change is made in the summer, where in work managers become more available and that this appointment is throughly considered given how important it will be.

Edited 29 April 2018 by DJ Barry Hammond

[Donut]

The owners are brilliant.

[StriderHiryu]

The owners have made tons of mistakes and will continue to make more, because they are human like the rest of us. The Puel one is perhaps a big one that they've made recently, but they will learn and improve and I think they will always back us, even if we went down.

 

I wouldn't change them for the world. Honestly, in world sports I can't think of better owners than these. Came in, wiped the debt out, are building the club up for the future and achieved the most romantic football story of all time. Maybe the Man City owners are better, but they've done it through spending power really. And they are there for pretty much every home game too, and keep a low profile in general.

[Osavo]

30 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

@Osavo

 

3 year deals are the norm - a two year deal or less can shout ‘short-term’ and cause problems for a manager before they’ve got going.

 

And I wouldn’t say either Shakeu or Puel we’re appointed as short-term fixes at the time.

 

Its also worth noting, that new manager bounce doesn’t always occur.

So if Shakey and Puel weren't appointed as short-term fixers, surely that renders them unsuccessful, as all they did was go on a 5-10 game streak of good results, followed by stagnation and regression? 

 

I know new manager bounce doesn't always occur, and that is my worry. At some point this tactic of appointing managers to get us out of a hole we've dug ourselves will backfire, as I said previously. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

9 minutes ago, Osavo said:

So if Shakey and Puel weren't appointed as short-term fixers, surely that renders them unsuccessful, as all they did was go on a 5-10 game streak of good results, followed by stagnation and regression? 

 

I know new manager bounce doesn't always occur, and that is my worry. At some point this tactic of appointing managers to get us out of a hole we've dug ourselves will backfire, as I said previously. 

 

Depends on how you wish to view things - I’m suggesting they had some success at the point that was needed, so weren’t necessarily bad appointments - just not great ones.

 

West Brom appointed both Pepe Mel and Alan Pardew - now they were bad appointments.

[Osavo]

1 minute ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Depends on how you wish to view things - I’m suggesting they had some success at the point that was needed, so weren’t necessarily bad appointments - just not great ones.

 

West Brom appointed both Pepe Mel and Alan Pardew - now they were bad appointments.

I agree with you, they were not BAD appointments, and like you say we could have done a lot worse, but surely as a club we should be aiming higher than 'not bad'. In my mind, overall, they cannot be classified as successful appointments.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

2 minutes ago, Osavo said:

I agree with you, they were not BAD appointments, and like you say we could have done a lot worse, but surely as a club we should be aiming higher than 'not bad'. In my mind, overall, they cannot be classified as successful appointments.

 

Well have in mind the point was made to counter the original posts idea that the owners have some questions to answer.

 

Now I don’t agree, I can see logic in each decision they’ve been part of in terms of manager appointments and sackings - and think each can be fairly justified by the subsequent outcomes. 

 

They’ve not unfairly put the club at risk - which is why I think they’ll dispense with Puel (and the rumours and Puel’s comments before the Palace game suggested that was on the cards).

[old koppite]

No. Think they are brilliant.

They made us famous around the world. Us . Leicester. Citeh.

Just 1 example: immensely proud to walk through Bangkok airport and see our own shop, or see Vardys shirt around the Far East.

Talking to a deluded Derby fan tonight. His jealousy came out and he said you’ll never do it again ( win the PL)- I said no, but neither will you or any team outside of the top 6 for many years to come.

[CslFox]

They're generally top notch but have been taking far too much dodgy advice from so-called football people in the higher echelons of the club. Their only fault is their seemingly unshakeable faith in Rudkin and the like.

[dylanlegend]

Yeh owners are shite... hopefully we'll get Mike Ashley when they leave.. or the Venkys

[esoog]

47 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

The owners have made tons of mistakes and will continue to make more, because they are human like the rest of us. The Puel one is perhaps a big one that they've made recently, but they will learn and improve and I think they will always back us, even if we went down.

 

I wouldn't change them for the world. Honestly, in world sports I can't think of better owners than these. Came in, wiped the debt out, are building the club up for the future and achieved the most romantic football story of all time. Maybe the Man City owners are better, but they've done it through spending power really. And they are there for pretty much every home game too, and keep a low profile in general.

Agreed

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, Blue Fox 72 said:

Mandaric appointed both of these?

 

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

Thinking back you might be right. Did the consortium appoint Levein?

Mandaric inherited Rob Kelly.

[Guest]

We've got fantastic owners.

They need a new world level DOF though.

[Foxaholic ME]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

The owner before these appointed Martin Allen, the board before him, Rob Kelly and the board before them, Peter Taylor.

 

All clubs make bad appointments at times. Man U appointed Van Gaal and David Moyes. Both good appointments on the face of it but both failed. Scolari won the World Cup but didn't last a year at Chelsea. Don't over analyse these things. Sacking managers isn't unique to us.

Martin ALLEN had  2 games even by this website that is ridiculous to class him with folks like Taylor Levein  and McLintock

[TonyN11]

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

 

Mandaric inherited Rob Kelly.

Don't forget Ian Holloway - finally managed to get us out of the Championship.