'We're limited' – Brendan Rodgers makes Leicester City transfer admission

[ealingfox]

16 minutes ago, Muzzy_Larsson said:

Well that's nonsense isn't it as Leicester qualified for Europe and the second best premier league season in history.

 

Maybe you'd be happier blowing wads of cash every summer on dross like Everton and West Ham and getting nowhere. Talk about being spoiled.

 

Why is there the assumption that increased spending would be on dross?

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Why is there the assumption that increased spending would be on dross?

Evidentially, just look at Everton up until this transfer window at a guess!

[Muzzy_Larsson]

2 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Why is there the assumption that increased spending would be on dross?

Because you mentioned Everton and used them as some sort of example in how Leicester should be spending wild amounts of money like them. A club who by and large pay over the odds and waste huge amounts of cash summer after summer.

[ealingfox]

3 minutes ago, Muzzy_Larsson said:

Because you mentioned Everton and used them as some sort of example in how Leicester should be spending wild amounts of money like them. A club who by and large pay over the odds and waste huge amounts of cash summer after summer.

 

In the act of spending, not what its spent on. I would expect us to spend better than West Ham ffs. And at no point did I say we should be spending 'wild amounts'. Just more.

[Muzzy_Larsson]

6 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

In the act of spending, not what its spent on. I would expect us to spend better than West Ham ffs. And at no point did I say we should be spending 'wild amounts'. Just more.

It's not like you haven't spent any money this summer, you've brought in two very good players and are trying hard for another one at £30m. How much do you deem it acceptable to spend with a wages to turnover ratio of 84% in the middle of a global pandemic that has restricted budgets across the board?

 

For what it's worth you've also spent more than West Ham this summer and if you sign Fofana you'll have spent considerably more. Despite the fact West Ham generate more revenue and have less outgoing costs than yourselves and are generally a more valuable club (See Forbes/Deloitte).

[Blanchflower78]

1 hour ago, Dr The Singh said:

Brendan is going to do one.  He comes across to me horny and frustrated.

 

He wants to do big things and i don't think Leicester can meet his expectations

Some truth in this suggestion youd think. He must be looking at Wolves and Everton through gritted teeth...

[ealingfox]

5 minutes ago, Muzzy_Larsson said:

It's not like you haven't spent any money this summer, you've brought in two very good players and are trying hard for another one at £30m. How much do you deem it acceptable to spend with a wages to turnover ratio of 84% in the middle of a global pandemic that has restricted budgets across the board?

 

For what it's worth you've also spent more than West Ham this summer and if you sign Fofana you'll have spent considerably more. Despite the fact West Ham generate more revenue and have less outgoing costs than yourselves and are generally a more valuable club (See Forbes/Deloitte).

 

We've sold a player for 50m and spent 24m on 2 new ones. That's a whopping spend of -26m.

[Muzzy_Larsson]

1 minute ago, ealingfox said:

 

We've sold a player for 50m and spent 24m on 2 new ones. That's a whopping spend of -26m.

Your about to spend £30m on another CB and if Under is successful that'll be another £25m you'll have committed to spend. 

 

I'd hate to have seen what you were like when the club weren't doing well.

[ealingfox]

1 minute ago, Muzzy_Larsson said:

Your about to spend £30m on another CB and if Under is successful that'll be another £25m you'll have committed to spend. 

 

I'd hate to have seen what you were like when the club weren't doing well.

 

If those things happen then the picture will be different. Although Under will be next summer's spend.

 

I have never understood why people think the second paragraph is ever a good point, it's not. When the club weren't doing well we didnt have billionaire owners, we weren't in the Premier League and we didnt have the 8th best paid squad in the country. So my expectations and aspirations weren't the same. They evolve according to the circumstances as with most normal people.

[Muzzy_Larsson]

2 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

If those things happen then the picture will be different. Although Under will be next summer's spend.

 

I have never understood why people think the second paragraph is ever a good point, it's not. When the club weren't doing well we didnt have billionaire owners, we weren't in the Premier League and we didnt have the 8th best paid squad in the country. So my expectations and aspirations weren't the same. They evolve according to the circumstances as with most normal people.

I don't think your expectations are that of most normal people judging by some of the replies on this thread.

 

In case you haven't noticed also, most premier league clubs have billionaire owners and despite your thinking you guys are lucky you have one of the more responsible sets of owners who aren't artificially inflating the club to one day lose interest and leave you in ruins.

[Babylon]

59 minutes ago, reynard said:

The truth is he's 100% correct and last night really showed that up. The end of last season demonstrated it too when we simply couldn't cope with injuries to key players.

 

We have a very decent 14 or 15 players and the rest simply aren't good enough to maintain us at the top end of the league. Ideally we could do with another 4 quality players in this window and clearing out those who are just not going to play. Realistically we might get one in permanently and another on loan.

We have to get a CB and we could really use another striker. A few injuries to key players and we are going to be in for a very long and hard season. Priority has to be the Premier League and ensuring we stay in it. Anything else we really don't have the squad depth to cope with.

Have you read the article?

[coolhandfox]

We have achieved a PL win, our PL finishes have been 14th, 1st, 12th, 9th, 9th, 5th.

 

In 6 years we have qualified twice for Europe and got to the Qtr- final of the CL. 

 

We have built a state of the art Training ground, we have a academy which is producing talent who are improving the first team and being sold for a profit.

 

All on the back of being self-sufficient, which in these trouble time is important.

 

There are probably 6 team with a better squad then us............

 

Get a grip people.

 

[Muzzy_Larsson]

1 minute ago, coolhandfox said:

We have achieved a PL win, are PL finishes have been 14th, 1st, 12th, 9th, 9th, 5th.

 

In 6 years we have qualitied twice for Europe and got to the Qtr- final of the CL. 

 

We have built a state of the art Training ground, we have a academy which producing talent who are improving the first time and being sold for a profit.

 

All on the back of being self-sufficient, which  in important these trouble time is important.

 

There are probably 6 team with a better squad then us............

 

Get a grip people.

 

Nail on head, thank you. I'd like this but I have used all my likes for the day

[Babylon]

25 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

In the act of spending, not what its spent on. I would expect us to spend better than West Ham ffs. And at no point did I say we should be spending 'wild amounts'. Just more.

Better or more? Because West Ham's revenue was £20m more than ours in the last accounts, yet we spend £14m more a year on wages. 

[baldeagle]

5 hours ago, ealingfox said:

Weird that clubs smaller than us seem to have plenty though.

Have they just had a multi million pound training  facility built ?

[Babylon]

3 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

We have achieved a PL win, are PL finishes have been 14th, 1st, 12th, 9th, 9th, 5th.

 

In 6 years we have qualitied twice for Europe and got to the Qtr- final of the CL. 

 

We have built a state of the art Training ground, we have a academy which producing talent who are improving the first time and being sold for a profit.

 

All on the back of being self-sufficient, which  in important these trouble time is important.

 

There are probably 6 team with a better squad then us............

 

Get a grip people.

 

[ealingfox]

4 minutes ago, Muzzy_Larsson said:

I don't think your expectations are that of most normal people judging by some of the replies on this thread.

 

In case you haven't noticed also, most premier league clubs have billionaire owners and despite your thinking you guys are lucky you have one of the more responsible sets of owners who aren't artificially inflating the club to one day lose interest and leave you in ruins.

 

I said normal people's hopes and expectations evolve according to the circumstances. I also think you're making assumptions about what my hopes and expectations are. Although isn't it every fan's hope that their club strives to be the best it can be?

 

This idea that any suggestion of spending more automatically is a suggestion of going on gargantuan spending sprees and spaffing billions is getting tedious. There is a lot of room in between. 

 

I suggest we leave it there as the thread is being clogged up and it's a pointless argument really.

 

Just now, Babylon said:

Better or more? Because West Ham's revenue was £20m more than ours in the last accounts, yet we spend £14m more a year on wages. 

 

Remember you're trying to convince me that spending more is bad.

[Beechey]

3 hours ago, ealingfox said:

 

Yet Everton are still spending big.

They've also been recording losses of >£100m per year. They're on the edge of being absolutely hammered by FFP. If the owners don't want to underwrite our losses (they would be required to), then we can only spend what we make, because we're so hamstrung by wages.

The difference is that Leicester is self-sufficient, whereas Everton are not, and what do they have to show for it?

[norwichfox]

2 hours ago, Nalis said:

Leicester is probably his level though, if you are talking about the size of club then Spurs at a push.

 

Saying that you are right, reckon he would be the type to jump ship if someone better approached. 

Would probably help our finances if they have to buy out Rodgers contract, it would surely get us a CM...but not sure that I want to see a Taylor, Sven, Puel or a McLintock type manager in his place.

[Nalis]

6 minutes ago, norwichfox said:

Would probably help our finances if they have to buy out Rodgers contract, it would surely get us a CM...but not sure that I want to see a Taylor, Sven, Puel or a McLintock type manager in his place.

True, we are pretty much two bad (or one spectacularly bad) manager appointments from getting relegated.

[LCFCCHRIS]

Rather they continue to 'gamble' on less costly players.. hasn't worked out badly of late. This season's and last season's signings all look sensible compared to other clubs. We seem to get the same quality for a lot less with less known players. Of course there are ghezzels and slimanis out there too but we've made that mistake and I'm confident the current management wouldn't make ones like that. 

[norwichfox]

21 minutes ago, Nalis said:

True, we are pretty much two bad (or one spectacularly bad) manager appointments from getting relegated.

And that is why we don't need a manager change...

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, ealingfox said:

Remember you're trying to convince me that spending more is bad.

No, I asked if you meant more or better than West Ham. 

 

Nobody is trying to convince you spending is bad. But you seem happy to cast envious eyes at a club who so far has shown themselves totally incapable of spending the money with any coherent plan. Even their latest one is short term signing a bunch of 29 year olds. So even if they get it right, they are starting again pretty soon. There is no longevity to it. 

 

Then you bring up clubs spending more than us (like £1m or £2m more), almost like you'd be happy if we'd spent £4m more on Castagne you'd be happy because it looks good on a meaningless spend table. 

 

Why would you want to trade owners proven to have a LONG TERM plan that's worked and is still working, for someone with money. That person might not even exist and there is certainly no guarantee they'd know what to do with it. The criticism just defies belief. 

 

They don't want to spend money, so going on about it is utterly pointless. What they do is put pretty much everything back into the team and the infrastructure and seem to make the very most of every £. 

[Ashley]

2 hours ago, Muzzy_Larsson said:

It's not like you haven't spent any money this summer, you've brought in two very good players and are trying hard for another one at £30m. How much do you deem it acceptable to spend with a wages to turnover ratio of 84% in the middle of a global pandemic that has restricted budgets across the board?

 

For what it's worth you've also spent more than West Ham this summer and if you sign Fofana you'll have spent considerably more. Despite the fact West Ham generate more revenue and have less outgoing costs than yourselves and are generally a more valuable club (See Forbes/Deloitte).

If we bring in someone else at around £30m then its in line with our spending within recent seasons. 

 

I'm sure our fan base want us to spend £100 million plus every year. Never happy.

[jonthefox]

6 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

I thought it was just before you get to Lutterworth?

 

The opposite end would be Melton.

Sat nav Trav