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
Tom12345

Foxes To Step Up to Next Level

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Muzzy_Larsson said:

You aren't a club who finished mid table though so that argument is nonsense. Plenty of clubs follow a similar model in selling a big player every summer and replacing them smartly and do very well, get to latter stages of European competition (often winning it in the case of sides like Sevilla), regularly qualifying and reaching the latter stages of CL (Porto, Ajax, among others). If you think your going to be holding onto all of your top players and go out and spend the same amount of money as top 6 sides and compete with them on the park then your simply living in a fantasy land, the reality is your a smaller club at the moment than these sides, with far less income so you have to find a way of boxing clever and competing with them by alternative means and the best way to do that is to outperform them in the transfer market.

One season in 5 with a back half of the season where we could've finished in the bottom half, that isnt consistent. Its all about consistency, consistency and consistency. Without changes to the clubs transfer policy we will be consistent, but with a mid table tag. We have a bloated squad some of which are on ridiculous wages and that is the clubs responsibility for how that has ended up. It will take years to correct that with the longevity that is required and in line with BR's slim sqaud criteria, by which time he probably won't be here any longer. Trajectory is everything and looking at the likes of athletico madrid 10 years ago then they were carrying out what we are doing but the difference in the end was that they had to gamble on quality signings and in the end have moved onwards and upwards to regular CL campaigns. We cannot remain on our current model and expect to make consistent and higher table position foundations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UHDrive said:

for the 2nd time in 5 years and could have by the end of the season finished 10th.

and if my auntie had balls she could be my uncle.

 

The club is on a very obvious upward trajectory and punching way above its weight, whatever strategy they have to do that it's clearly working.

Edited by Muzzy_Larsson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UHDrive said:

One season in 5 with a back half of the season where we could've finished in the bottom half, that isnt consistent. Its all about consistency, consistency and consistency. Without changes to the clubs transfer policy we will be consistent, but with a mid table tag. We have a bloated squad some of which are on ridiculous wages and that is the clubs responsibility for how that has ended up. It will take years to correct that with the longevity that is required and in line with BR's slim sqaud criteria, by which time he probably won't be here any longer. Trajectory is everything and looking at the likes of athletico madrid 10 years ago then they were carrying out what we are doing but the difference in the end was that they had to gamble on quality signings and in the end have moved onwards and upwards to regular CL campaigns. We cannot remain on our current model and expect to make consistent and higher table position foundations.

Atletico Madrid are being as consistent as you say using the exact same model as Leicester and along the lines of what we've been talking about lol

 

They typically sell a big player most summers (Griezmann last summer for example) and reinvest the money. The difference is they can do it at a larger scale as they've managed to qualify for the champions league consistently and have the extra money that brings, Leicester are on the same journey just behind them on the same path.

 

Also Atletico are traditionally are a far bigger club in their own country comparatively than Leicester and have a stadium twice the size.

 

The club is in great hands, good owners with a good proven and working model, no need to tear that up due to some ego trip around not selling players to a bigger club.

Edited by Muzzy_Larsson
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Muzzy_Larsson said:

Atletico Madrid are being as consistent as you say using the exact same model as Leicester and along the lines of what we've been talking about lol

 

They typically sell a big player most summers (Griezmann last summer for example) and reinvest the money. The difference is they can do it at a larger scale as they've managed to qualify for the champions league consistently and have the extra money that brings, Leicester are on the same journey just behind them on the same path.

 

Also Atletico are traditionally are a far bigger club in their own country comparatively than Leicester and have a stadium twice the size.

 

The club is in great hands, good owners with a good proven and working model, no need to tear that up due to some ego trip around not selling players to a bigger club.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/08/2020 at 01:19, Muzzy_Larsson said:

Don't mean to be confrontational but I disagree with a lot of this. Selling 1 key asset every summer doesn't make you a selling club imo, nor does it inhibit your ambition to break into the top 6. In fact I'd argue the exact opposite in that selling a player for a lot of money every summer and being clever in how you replace them (Maguire and Soyuncu being the most recent and obvious example) is the only long term strategy that will see a club like Leicester establish themselves as a top 6 side. The main reason for this being the traditional big 6 clubs are typically always going to be able to outspend you so you need to be creative to be able to trade blow for blow with them and compete with them season in season out. Done well this model is pretty effective, look at a club like Sevilla for example.

 

I think the whole notion of a "selling club" is in itself a bit of a fallacy. Going by the definition in the OP it basically means there are only a handful of clubs in world football that aren't selling clubs according to this logic, probably Barcelona, Real Madrid, Juventus and Bayern Munich, I guess you could argue exactly who but you get my drift. Even clubs like Man Utd, Liverpool, etc are at the mercy of these clubs for their best players if they come calling, see Ronaldo in previous years, Hazard last season with Chelsea, etc, etc.

 

Knocking back the £80m you got for Maguire last season or an amount in the same region for Chilwell this summer would be madness and short sighted and would inhibit the ability to improve the squad overall going forward.

:appl:

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/08/2020 at 15:25, Qwerty said:

I think clubs have to tread a fine line.  You don’t want to be a “selling club”, but equally you don’t want to be a club that players know they can’t escape from, because then they might choose not to come here in the first place!  The whole Mahrez fiasco - hanging on to him when he was desperate to go - wasn’t a good for our image at all.  I think the firm but fair approach is better. Yes we’ll sell if you want to go, but only for a good price, and only one of you at a time!

...absolutely correct!!!

The only problem with Mahrez was he was promised an exit and believed he was now being priced out of a move. So far as he was concerned any price put forward by a prospective buyer should be accepted (unreasonable), as for the club unless the market value is met, he is going nowhere (reasonable).

  The pull from the big 4 is something that you need to accept, Chilwell is not Le Tissier, he probable does not support the club and therefore has not the ties or emotionally involved in the success of the club like you do. Chilwell is also a professional football player and wants to play at the highest level that he can.

 Lineker claims it is only when he finished playing when he became a Leicester City Supporter again. 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sacreblueits442 said:

...absolutely correct!!!

The only problem with Mahrez was he was promised an exit and believed he was now being priced out of a move. So far as he was concerned any price put forward by a prospective buyer should be accepted (unreasonable), as for the club unless the market value is met, he is going nowhere (reasonable).

  The pull from the big 4 is something that you need to accept, Chilwell is not Le Tissier, he probable does not support the club and therefore has not the ties or emotionally involved in the success of the club like you do. Chilwell is also a professional football player and wants to play at the highest level that he can.

 Lineker claims it is only when he finished playing when he became a Leicester City Supporter again. 

  

I never liked mahrez's immature statement that leicester city were to blame now that hes in his twighlight end of his career due to not selling him when he demanded we did, particularly when we only plucked him from obscurity when he was 24.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, UHDrive said:

One season in 5 with a back half of the season where we could've finished in the bottom half, that isnt consistent. Its all about consistency, consistency and consistency. Without changes to the clubs transfer policy we will be consistent, but with a mid table tag. We have a bloated squad some of which are on ridiculous wages and that is the clubs responsibility for how that has ended up. It will take years to correct that with the longevity that is required and in line with BR's slim sqaud criteria, by which time he probably won't be here any longer. Trajectory is everything and looking at the likes of athletico madrid 10 years ago then they were carrying out what we are doing but the difference in the end was that they had to gamble on quality signings and in the end have moved onwards and upwards to regular CL campaigns. We cannot remain on our current model and expect to make consistent and higher table position foundations.

You're very much a 'glass half empty' kind of person, aren't you?

 

"Could have finished bottom half." And? We didn't, did we? We could also have won the league. Meaningless.

 

What changes to the club's transfer policy? Gambling with money we don't have? Why? Why the fuch should we take risks we don't need to when we're making such incredible progress without doing that? It makes no sense whatsoever to put the future of the club at risk. Ever. But to suggest doing that while we're enjoying probably our most successful period in our 136-year history really boggles the mind. Really.

 

Re: bloated squad. There are expensive mistakes on the books, but they are on their way out. You're not completely wrong when you say "it will take years to correct that," but we're talking 2 years. The worst of it is Slimani and Silva. Slimani may be gone imminently, and both will be gone next summer. By the way, these 2 signings were players we signed for big money at their peak ages. Aren't these the sort of players you're arguing we should sign more of?

 

You are totally contradicting yourself. You're bemoaning the club for having a bloated squad of players on ridiculous wages in the same breath as arguing the club should gamble on quality - read: expensive - signings. There's no pleasing you.

 

You say we cannot persist with our current model and expect to progress, but that is exactly what we are doing. We've just finished 5th with our current model. That's a bit better than the last 3 years, isn't it? But I guess it doesn't count because in a parallel universe, it could have been bottom half, right?

 

7 hours ago, UHDrive said:

for the 2nd time in 5 years and could have by the end of the season finished 10th.

Again with the pointless hypotheticals. You don't need to hypothesise when you know what really happened. It could have been anything from 1st to 20th. It was 5th. Not any of the others.

 

We're talking about Leicester City finishing in the top 5 of English football, don't forget. Leicester CIty! It's only 6 years since we ended a 10 year exodus from the top flight. It's only 11 years since we were 3rd tier - our lowest ebb of all time. There are many traditionally/formerly bigger/similar-sized clubs than us who would kill to be in our position right now. I think you need to have some perspective.

 

This is almost certainly the greatest ever time to support this club, it's happening in your lifetime (How lucky is that? How many Leicester supporters died too soon or will be born too late to see this?), and there's no reason to believe that the near future doesn't look even brighter. If you can't enjoy being a Leicester City fan right now, then I seriously doubt you ever will.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/08/2020 at 06:09, Chrysalis said:

In my opinion we are a selling club, but its a plan that has us doing better than other clubs our size, so its ok.  I would rather we sell players, than become completely financially unstable.  Also player transfers are often necessary to facilitate a manager to shape the team he wants.

Until we don't, right? The argument has always been pro-selling when the turn-over is positive. Players brought in either progress the club or shore up the current position. Then the argument changes once that pattern isn't replicated. New players don't perform, don't fulfill their promise. An injury here, there to other "key" players and we suddenly see the lack of depth through the squad. If we find ourselves fighting for relegation the argument then becomes it was never sustainable. We can blame the scouts, we can blame the hierarchy but I'm down with the policy as long as we accept the hit when the world turns and it smacks us in the face.

 

 I agree with the individual arguments about selling recent players (Mahrez, Maguire, Kante, Drinkwater, Chilwell(?)) because they're all different. But I guess at what point does that become policy over each individual situation? Next season is it Maddison? Peraira? Barns? And if it is policy what does that message to the players, manager and any future recruitment?    

 

It feels to me as if we're in an interesting situation of choosing how we manage this precarious area between the top tier clubs and the mid-table clubs. In another thread there's talk of a "band of brothers" mentality. That's built imo. Usually by a common cause. We saw it with Potch' and Spuds. And we see it more clearly with teams like Burnley and Wolves. And we saw it when we won the league.  To do it imo you have to have players rally to that cause. So what does it message when that cause is undermined from WITHIN the club itself? If you're building towards that goal and with every new brick you see a foundation brick being removed? So what's our cause? Finish between 10th and 5th? Keep turn-over to remain in reach of the top 4 so in a lucky year we might break into those top spots? Compete for the top 4 spots?  

Edited by Hoopla10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/08/2020 at 22:27, Hoopla10 said:

Until we don't, right? The argument has always been pro-selling when the turn-over is positive. Players brought in either progress the club or shore up the current position. Then the argument changes once that pattern isn't replicated. New players don't perform, don't fulfill their promise. An injury here, there to other "key" players and we suddenly see the lack of depth through the squad. If we find ourselves fighting for relegation the argument then becomes it was never sustainable. We can blame the scouts, we can blame the hierarchy but I'm down with the policy as long as we accept the hit when the world turns and it smacks us in the face.

 

 I agree with the individual arguments about selling recent players (Mahrez, Maguire, Kante, Drinkwater, Chilwell(?)) because they're all different. But I guess at what point does that become policy over each individual situation? Next season is it Maddison? Peraira? Barns? And if it is policy what does that message to the players, manager and any future recruitment?    

 

It feels to me as if we're in an interesting situation of choosing how we manage this precarious area between the top tier clubs and the mid-table clubs. In another thread there's talk of a "band of brothers" mentality. That's built imo. Usually by a common cause. We saw it with Potch' and Spuds. And we see it more clearly with teams like Burnley and Wolves. And we saw it when we won the league.  To do it imo you have to have players rally to that cause. So what does it message when that cause is undermined from WITHIN the club itself? If you're building towards that goal and with every new brick you see a foundation brick being removed? So what's our cause? Finish between 10th and 5th? Keep turn-over to remain in reach of the top 4 so in a lucky year we might break into those top spots? Compete for the top 4 spots?  

The solution to the problem is to increase our turnover.

 

We cannot spend 200-300m with 150m turnover.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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