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
urban.spaceman

OFFICIAL: Rodgers signs new contract!

By urban.spaceman, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

LC/FC

LC/FC

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, HitchinFox said:

Arsenal Fan TV on 5 December:

"Why wouldn't Rodgers come, fam? We're bigger, you understand? He would join us in a heartbeat, blood, you understand? He's the best choice out there, fam."

 

Arsenal Fan TV on 6 December:

"Allegri or Benitez for me, fam. Those are the best choices out there, fam. You understand?"

God, I probably need to stop watching and laughing at AFTV, as I read that in Troopz's voice.

:blink:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Clever Fox said:

Not disputing that at all.  I was merely answering albums question. I don't for a minute think he done it for the money. 

It's more about the opportunity we present. He doesn't need the money, he's already wealthy. 

 

1 hour ago, Markyblue said:

Lets be honest he would be sure to be very wealthy wherever he went, he hopefully is buying into a vision and bright future for our club.

The point being we wouldn’t let him leave and he wouldn’t want to sully his reputation by walking out after eight months - so why would he turn down a wedge more dosh 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clever Fox

Clever Fox

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

 

The point being we wouldn’t let him leave and he wouldn’t want to sully his reputation by walking out after eight months - so why would he turn down a wedge more dosh 

No you can't blame him for taking the money.  But I do think it's the opportunity we present that excites him. Rather than taking on all the problems Arsenal present.

 

Regardless of the the money I'm really excited about us properly challenging for trophies now. 

Our team is so close to the finished article, not that there's ever such a thing in football. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Tom12345

Tom12345

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Kitchandro said:

You can't seriously be saying those 2 were good appointments.

 

We actually wasted 2 years messing about with Shakespeare and Puel - that, if anything, is what we should have learned from the last few months under Rodgers. Good managers do not need a lot of time and do not make excuses.

 

I mean for god's sake, even the players have admitted hating Puel, can we just stop avoiding the fact he was a terrible manager?

I was talking about making those decisions to sack, not appoint - so I meant that they made the right choice in “sacking” Shakespeare and then “sacking” Puel at the time that they did.

 

Having said that, I do believe Puel was not a bad manager and did indeed do the dirty work that enabled Rodgers to come in and achieve what he has achieved within a short time. So I have to disagree with you there. Even Rodgers himself mentioned the work that Puel did (ie. trying to add possession football to our play) which he could take on and move it forward to where it is today - in the interview earlier today!

 

So you cannot skip history and not look at context. Puel took over a bunch of players still with the egos from the title winning season stuck in their mind about the one dimensional counter attacking style. Even some fans were calling for that! 

 

Puel brought in Ricardo, Soyuncu, Maddison and Tielemans - 4 key players in our starting 11. He groomed Chilwell and insisted on him over title winning hero Fuchs - who was definitely better than Chilwell at the time. He said he was trying to coach Vardy to learn new ways of playing in the box so he can prolong his career - exactly what Rodgers has been saying too.  More importantly Puel spent a lot of time telling the players to change style - when you do that with big ego players you will get the hate and the bad results. When Rodgers come in - the players have been through the hard yards already and realised they also needed to change. This is why Rodgers could be so effective in coming in and change the mentality.

 

Said it many times before. Puel started the project - he was the builder who came in and knocked the old house down and laid the bricks for a new home (for the same project). But he was a bricklayer. His work was done and could not really finish it off with the nice finishing on the inside (interior design - mentality - where Rodgers is excellent) and on the outside (the landscape and the end product from the outside - again Rodgers is excellent). Puel had used up all his political coins to force change and had taken the team as far as he could. We saw the potential of the team back then - and we could beat Liverpool and Man City! And we were frustrated in seeing some obvious stubbornness and blindsided-ness in Puel - eg. he played Ndidi but he made him (in my opinion but you may have a different view) do too much (or he didnt rein him in) so he was breaking up plays too much. But he knew the greatness of Ndidi so he insisted using him (great) but he could not see Ndidi’s limitations. (This is not a post about Ndidi.)

 

So, to conclude, no if Rodgers came in after Shakepeare, he would have struggled for a while too. Just think about the squad we had back then. Dont get me wrong Rodgers is an upgrade - but you cant use a Rolls Royce on a dirty bumpy road (Even if we could, he would have had to use quite a bit of political capital to force change just like Puel did although he could probably use up less because he does seem to have much better man management skills.). But when we could, the club saw it and made the change and that was what I said about the brilliance in the club’s decision making.

Edited by Tom12345
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Babylon

Babylon

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
4 hours ago, Kitchandro said:

You can't seriously be saying those 2 were good appointments.

 

We actually wasted 2 years messing about with Shakespeare and Puel - that, if anything, is what we should have learned from the last few months under Rodgers. Good managers do not need a lot of time and do not make excuses.

 

I mean for god's sake, even the players have admitted hating Puel, can we just stop avoiding the fact he was a terrible manager?

You wouldn’t have got Rodgers when Puel took over, we might have wanted him but the “project” looked a far harder and a far shitter one.

 

Whether you wish to give the club or Puel, or both the credit. During his time we transitioned the club from one relying on old players past or passing their best, unable to play possession football, to one of the most exciting young teams around already making strides into being possession team.

 

So to suggest that time was wasted is laughable. 

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom12345

Tom12345

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, That_Dude said:

Wait for the summer.

 

Delighted by the news but the cynical in me says that the new contract's more a way for him to get more money should he go to another club.

Look, we cannot stop anyone leave their jobs. It is a free market. All the club can do is to make him feel this is where he should be and he is appreciated! If I get to be in a really exciting startup and I am in the middle of it all calling shots and creating history, and the owners give me a 80% payrise after 8 months, and all my customers/fans love what we do, I am not sure I would want to go anywhere else?

 

Why go to Man U and be sacked after 1 year? Or Real Madrid where it could be shorter. I really dont get all this talk of other “top” jobs. The only one I can think of is Man City after Pep leaves but even then the sense of achievement would never be the same as taking Leicester to the top!

Edited by Tom12345
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chrysalis

Chrysalis

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Heymister2015 said:

its lucky he's here at a time we have the best owners in football, the new training ground and stadium plans! Otherwise he'd be gone!

every time I see a video of our training ground it looks like they training in a garden, I am reminded why we building a new training complex. :)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Chrysalis

Chrysalis

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Kitchandro said:

You can't seriously be saying those 2 were good appointments.

 

We actually wasted 2 years messing about with Shakespeare and Puel - that, if anything, is what we should have learned from the last few months under Rodgers. Good managers do not need a lot of time and do not make excuses.

 

I mean for god's sake, even the players have admitted hating Puel, can we just stop avoiding the fact he was a terrible manager?

Puel was not a waste of time, he made the team attractive enough for Rodgers to want to join in the first place, look at the changes made to the team during his tenure and the style changes to the way we played.  Puel did a reasonable job, but he did hit his limit with us.

Edited by Chrysalis
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
foxy boxing

foxy boxing

Posted
Posted

Fantastic news, keeps the the club and the squad on an upward curve, where we can keep developing and improving which all means a better calibre of player will want to come here and we are more likely to hit our transfer targets as well as keeping the players we want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
midland_red

midland_red

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Tom12345 said:

I was talking about making those decisions to sack, not appoint - so I meant that they made the right choice in “sacking” Shakespeare and then “sacking” Puel at the time that they did.

 

Having said that, I do believe Puel was not a bad manager and did indeed do the dirty work that enabled Rodgers to come in and achieve what he has achieved within a short time. So I have to disagree with you there. Even Rodgers himself mentioned the work that Puel did (ie. trying to add possession football to our play) which he could take on and move it forward to where it is today - in the interview earlier today!

 

So you cannot skip history and not look at context. Puel took over a bunch of players still with the egos from the title winning season stuck in their mind about the one dimensional counter attacking style. Even some fans were calling for that! 

 

Puel brought in Ricardo, Soyuncu, Maddison and Tielemans - 4 key players in our starting 11. He groomed Chilwell and insisted on him over title winning hero Fuchs - who was definitely better than Chilwell at the time. He said he was trying to coach Vardy to learn new ways of playing in the box so he can prolong his career - exactly what Rodgers has been saying too.  More importantly Puel spent a lot of time telling the players to change style - when you do that with big ego players you will get the hate and the bad results. When Rodgers come in - the players have been through the hard yards already and realised they also needed to change. This is why Rodgers could be so effective in coming in and change the mentality.

 

Said it many times before. Puel started the project - he was the builder who came in and knocked the old house down and laid the bricks for a new home (for the same project). But he was a bricklayer. His work was done and could not really finish it off with the nice finishing on the inside (interior design - mentality - where Rodgers is excellent) and on the outside (the landscape and the end product from the outside - again Rodgers is excellent). Puel had used up all his political coins to force change and had taken the team as far as he could. We saw the potential of the team back then - and we could beat Liverpool and Man City! And we were frustrated in seeing some obvious stubbornness and blindsided-ness in Puel - eg. he played Ndidi but he made him (in my opinion but you may have a different view) do too much (or he didnt rein him in) so he was breaking up plays too much. But he knew the greatness of Ndidi so he insisted using him (great) but he could not see Ndidi’s limitations. (This is not a post about Ndidi.)

 

So, to conclude, no if Rodgers came in after Shakepeare, he would have struggled for a while too. Just think about the squad we had back then. Dont get me wrong Rodgers is an upgrade - but you cant use a Rolls Royce on a dirty bumpy road (Even if we could, he would have had to use quite a bit of political capital to force change just like Puel did although he could probably use up less because he does seem to have much better man management skills.). But when we could, the club saw it and made the change and that was what I said about the brilliance in the club’s decision making.

Excellent, balanced post

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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