Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Aus Fox

Premier League Thread 2019/20

By Aus Fox, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Finnegan

Finnegan

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Here's one hell of a stat for you. 

 

I mean Man City were rubbish for half of that time but Pep has been with them long enough to do much better than that. 

 

 

This is a useless stat without knowing how many of those games were Pep. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest An Sionnach

Guest An Sionnach

Posted
Posted

Are we all looking forward to Leeds, West Brom. and maybe even Forest next year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chrysalis

Chrysalis

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Foxin_Mad said:

We probably exist mid to lower top league, with the occasional relegation and promotion.

 

We are punching well above or weight currently, we have fantastic owners who are building the structure to (hopefully)move to the next level. We are Leicester City we won the Premier league, the natural order never has that happening!!

 

Until Abramovich went to Chelsea they were nothing, same with Man City in League 1 15 years back. Our owners could take us up a step if they get it right. 

 

The trouble for us at present is we are one bad season away from disaster so it's a massively hard task. 

They need to work on the turnover.  Which makes it odd the training ground came ahead of the stadium, the shirt sponsorship (the owners are the sponsors so should be easy to fix, but they dont seem motivated for money to come from themselves).

 

The turnover defines the size of the club really, the muscles it can flex, and its barely changed from our first promotion season.  It only spikes up temporarily when we won the title and CL season.

 

Until turnover is higher then we will be over achieving when we in this area of the league table.

 

Looking at chelsea and man city, it was an initial splurge of cash, but their owners did increase the turnover of those clubs, so they are now actual giants in their position naturally.  Even if that turnover is partially fake(overhyped sponsorship), its still on the balance sheet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aus Fox

Aus Fox

Posted
  • Author
Posted
44 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Here's one hell of a stat for you. 

 

I mean Man City were rubbish for half of that time but Pep has been with them long enough to do much better than that. 

 

Are we the one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
urban fox

urban fox

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

They need to work on the turnover.  Which makes it odd the training ground came ahead of the stadium, the shirt sponsorship (the owners are the sponsors so should be easy to fix, but they dont seem motivated for money to come from themselves).

 

The turnover defines the size of the club really, the muscles it can flex, and its barely changed from our first promotion season.  It only spikes up temporarily when we won the title and CL season.

 

Until turnover is higher then we will be over achieving when we in this area of the league table.

 

Looking at chelsea and man city, it was an initial splurge of cash, but their owners did increase the turnover of those clubs, so they are now actual giants in their position naturally.  Even if that turnover is partially fake(overhyped sponsorship), its still on the balance sheet.

It is a bit of a chicken-egg situation.

European football brings extra cash and helps to attract better players, which in turn increases the chances of regular European competition and cash generation. problem is you either have to have the players to get you there in the first place, or the cash to buy them.

Our owners plan for sustainable growth is the only way this can be achieved without a massive cash injection and risk of falling foul of FFP rules, which of course weren't in place when Chelsea and man city acquired their rich owners. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chrysalis

Chrysalis

Posted
Posted

When i compare us to the clubs we competing against, i am exlcuding TV money, and european money.

 

So I am looking at things like stadium income, commercial income. We are absolutely dwarfed on those.  The one thing that clearly stands out that could be fixed quickly is the king power shirt sponsorship, they could easily add 20 million to it, and it would be considered reasonable for the position we in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

When i compare us to the clubs we competing against, i am exlcuding TV money, and european money.

 

So I am looking at things like stadium income, commercial income. We are absolutely dwarfed on those.  The one thing that clearly stands out that could be fixed quickly is the king power shirt sponsorship, they could easily add 20 million to it, and it would be considered reasonable for the position we in.

Sorry, I think asking King Power to contribute more, especially at the moment, is taking the pi$$ a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicesterseddon

leicesterseddon

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Chrysalis said:

When i compare us to the clubs we competing against, i am exlcuding TV money, and european money.

 

So I am looking at things like stadium income, commercial income. We are absolutely dwarfed on those.  The one thing that clearly stands out that could be fixed quickly is the king power shirt sponsorship, they could easily add 20 million to it, and it would be considered reasonable for the position we in.

 

Doubt there's any prospect of King Power paying more anytime soon tbh. 

 

But generally I think you are right, the fact shirt and stadium sponsorship have not really increased much in recent years shows that keeping them in-house (if you like) has arguably been a drag-anchor on commercial growth. 

 

I was also slightly surprised that we have prioritised the training ground over a stadium expansion - but I think it at least shows original thinking and a laudable attempt to improve the team via young players and development. 

 

Overall I'm pretty happy. Also although Covid-19 will no doubt impede our growth, it might also act to level the field for a time because it will rob clubs like Man Utd and Arsenal of the advantage they have over us from matchday income, etc.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
davieG

davieG

Posted
Posted

Chelsea's top-four hopes have been dealt a blow with the news that they are likely to be without former Leicester City star N'Golo Kante for the next couple of games.

Kante suffered a hamstring problem in Saturday's Premier League win over Watford.

And Lampard revealed it is only a "low-level" issue, he is expected to miss the matches against Crystal Palace tonight (Tuesday) and Sheffield United on Saturday.

"Kante won't be in the squad," Lampard said ahead of Tuesday's London derby at Palace.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kingfox

kingfox

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Pressue on Pearson tonight.

 

Need to win.

 

Picking Deeney again hasn't gone down well.

What else can he do?

 

Start Andre Gray? He’s shit.

Start Welbeck up front with Pereyra out wide? But Watford fans don’t like Pereyra.

 

And I don’t think Pearson will start Pussetto or Joao Pedro anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...