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
davieG

The "do they mean us?" thread pt 3

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Koke said:

Saying the obvious I guess..... 

 

 

Watched the rest of that segment as I'm somehow drawn in by Simon Jordan since the Super League stuff and he's pretty complimentary about us too.

 

Most annoying thing is that he actually talks sense all the time even if he is a tool.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Captain... said:

As a club we are over achieving by any measurable statistic, you could say that other "bigger" clubs are underachieving but we are on for our second highest points total in the premier league era our first FA Cup final of the premier league era. Brendan is a big part of that, you could argue the players are the ones overachieving or the recruitment team are the real overachievers but it would be churlish not to credit Brendan with our success.

We are discussing Rodgers not the club, compared to our budget yes we are. But that's in no small part to the recruitment, which has enabled us to put together a very good squad for Rodgers to utilise. He can be the best coach in the world, but without the right players it means little. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, casablancas said:

Ah. I’m actually in staffs. You’re not a Brian by any chance are ya?

 

6 minutes ago, Staffs Fox said:

Na afraid not, although if my name was Brian I probably wouldn’t own up to it anyway! 

Hello, Brian 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Koke said:

 

One one hand Rodgers is overachieving when you look at our revenue compared to the bigger clubs. On the other hand he isn't overachieving because our squad is better than Spurs and Arsenal. Its not black or white imo, it's a bit nuanced to analyse Rodgers job here.

- I don’t think that’s a fact universally acknowledged, even if I happen to agree

- A good chunk of the reason our squad is so good is the recruitment and coaching work that he plays a huge role in.

- We’ve also beaten Man Utd to reach a Cup Final, and sit above Chelsea and Liverpool in the League table too. Is our squad better than theirs too?

- If so, then the club of which he is manager is massively overachieving.


I guess this comes down to whether you and @Babylon think that overachieving is a concept that makes sense. If the argument is “this squad finished third, so it was the third best squad, therefore we’ve achieved exactly what we should have and no more” then no one can ever overachieve. 
 

All a bit moot really. Guy’s doing a great job. He’s improved us and improved himself in the process. Me in 2015 thought that 5-3 would be our high water mark. There’s nothing wrong with staying hungry and ambitious, but we are all living in our teenage self’s dreamland, if we forget that then I think we’ve lost a lot of what’s great about our success.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, KFS said:

Makes me laugh when Man C are seen as a globally recognised brand but Leicester can’t be. Like people even knew who they were before the money and investment.

 

Give us a few more years at this and we’ll have that too.

Bit of a difference from winning 1 league and winning 4 Leagues, 2 FA cup wins and 6 league Cup wins.

 

We have a long way to go before we get there. 

 

I think you are also forgetting they won the league x 2, FA Cup x 2 and League Cup x 2 before they had money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It’s bizarre that they think football fans should care about this kind of thing. I’m interested in what we achieve on the pitch and not much else. 

Exactly, it's these prats playing at being football fans that are impressed with dross like that and the gullible commercial empires that spuff countless millions on endorsements for some of these clubs that are elite only in name and zero substance right now.

 

We are unlikely to ever make serious in roads commercially to get near the supposed big six but if we continue to upset their narrative by finishing above some of them and winning some of their trophies then who knows. We may well be more respected by the people who ought to matter more as we won't have bought the success or be viewed by an outdated perception on whether we are a powerhouse or not.

 

I really don't care, long may we keep making an absolute mockery of these slobs.

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

39 minutes ago, Koke said:

Saying the obvious I guess..... 

 

 

I don’t disagree with a lot of what he’s saying but what does bug me again is this idea Spurs and even to some extent Man City are as big or relevant names as Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal. When I say Spurs are closer in size to us than they are those clubs there’s genuine evidence to support that, he talks about recognisability, social media might just be a good barometer for that, as of now Manchester United are the most followed club in England on all platforms, Spurs are 6th, we’re 7th. 
 

Man Utd - 138m

Spurs - 38m

Us - 14m

 

Spurs are closer to us than they are Man Utd yet we’re led to believe they have the same level of value to the league that Man Utd do or that there’s the same amount of awareness, the Spurs narrative has been forced on us to the point people struggle to differentiate them from the others, if they forced us into that narrative I have no doubt we’d be even closer to Spurs in whatever metric you want to use to measure a clubs brand. Not that I’d necessarily want us to be.

Edited by Yes
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Babylon said:

We are discussing Rodgers not the club, compared to our budget yes we are. But that's in no small part to the recruitment, which has enabled us to put together a very good squad for Rodgers to utilise. He can be the best coach in the world, but without the right players it means little. 

I agree, the club is over achieving because of the structures it have in place, Rodgers is a big part of that, but he's not achieved it on he own. 

 

Football is all about recruitment, right manager, coaches, players.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Foxymcoxy said:

If we can keep up with those clubs on the pitch and still not lose our "colloquial" feel as Jordan puts it then in my book that is the absolute best case scenario and I certainly wouldn't wish for anything else. 

 

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Are you sure he didn't say parochial?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Oxfordfox83 said:

- There’s nothing wrong with staying hungry and ambitious, but we are all living in our teenage self’s dreamland, if we forget that then I think we’ve lost a lot of what’s great about our success.

My teenage self thought that we were under-achievers when you consider the squad we had back then with the likes Shilton, Frankie, Weller, Birch etc. etc. 

Even under MON who many believe was our best period from the past, whilst we did actually win two league cups i thought the Bloomfield boys were, overall a better side, and that we would never see the likes again in my lifetime. How wrong i was. Simply put, we are now where we are on merit, not just as a team or squad, but as a club on and off the pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

 

Oh my god, I am going to agree with Carra! Well in some of what he is saying. We are a very well run football club with a very good group of players. However, you cannot underestimate Brendan and his role in getting these guys to gel together and perform. With the injuries this season too!

 

Getting top 4 and the FA Cup will be an amazing season - loving it!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Yes said:

I don’t disagree with a lot of what he’s saying but what does bug me again is this idea Spurs and even to some extent Man City are as big or relevant names as Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal. When I say Spurs are closer in size to us than they are those clubs there’s genuine evidence to support that, he talks about recognisability, social media might just be a good barometer for that, as of now Manchester United are the most followed club in England on all platforms, Spurs are 6th, we’re 7th. 
 

Man Utd - 138m

Spurs - 38m

Us - 14m

 

Spurs are closer to us than they are Man Utd yet we’re led to believe they have the same level of value to the league that Man Utd do or that there’s the same amount of awareness, the Spurs narrative has been forced on us to the point people struggle to differentiate them from the others, if they forced us into that narrative I have no doubt we’d be even closer to Spurs in whatever metric you want to use to measure a clubs brand. Not that I’d necessarily want us to be.

Man Utd and Liverpool are the biggest clubs in the Country. Nobody needs social media numbers to know that.

 

I know we all have a laugh at Spurs but they have had 10 consecutive top 6 finishes including runners up twice and third once. They aren't as big as the other 5 clubs but lets not pretend they aren't a top 6 side.

 

We need to do the same - consistent top 6 finishes to be "accepted" as a top 6 side. Which sounds mad considering we won the bloody league but that was a sort of one off. If we had a couple top 6 finishes on top of that then people may look at us differently.

Edited by Fox92
missed "but"
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem these big teams have right now with us is that we aren't a one superstar team.

 

If villa get Grealish took off them, they would look like a bottom 6 side.  This is the way that it is with most clubs not in the big 6.  1 or 2 players at most that if picked off, would make a huge dent in that teams future successes.

 

Leicester have gotten past that stage.  If we get one cherry picked now per season, it doesn't make a difference, because there are what 6 or so more in the first 11 to cover the loss.  

 

Plus the players who are being sold we are making a huge profit on, which more often than not we have a cheaper replacement for the one that's left to fall back on, and then a development player that we have bought with the change left over.

 

We are like weeds, a big team pulls one up, thinking they've done a good job to stem the tide, only for two more to pop up somewhere else in the garden. 

Edited by kristianity77
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caraghar saying we’ve lost our best players under Rodgers - that’s just not the case is it? Chilwell was arguably, along with Perez our worst starter and Maguire wasn’t ‘amazing’ anyway! The problem may come in regards Tielemans and ndidi. I expect Ndidi to stay but unless Tielemans signs that contract, I’m not sure and he’s basically impossible to replace I’d say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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