Has the club gone down a dead end? Have we been run poorly?

[Guest Kopfkino]

I said it was a mess the other week and also have said that we’d started being run poorly. I’d row back on that a bit now, some poor decisions have been made that are hurting us now but we might have got away with had we got into Europe this year. My sense is that the club has seen the errors made and is trying to not make them again.
 

What would amount to being run poorly would be selling a prized asset and then adding more bloat to the squad without shifting the deadwood. Which is what a lot of people over the transfer section have been suggesting we do. You’re in a bad place when you sell your revenue-generating assets to subsidise your non-revenue generating assets.

 

Our problem almost resolves itself next year, and as I’ve said before the value of selling your asset next year is higher than selling now because other things like contracts expiring will give us far more room to use the proceeds of that asset more wisely.

[filbertway]

18 minutes ago, PAPA LAZAROU said:

Did they mind being felt?

Some more than others

 

 

8 minutes ago, goose2010 said:

i wonder if all these threads would have started if we had won on Sunday....

Definitely not. 90% of people base their thoughts purely on results.

[Babylon]

21 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

We shouldn't have let it get to the point where our wage bill was higher than our turnover let's be honest. How is that deemed acceptable in any organisation? 

It wasn’t until Covid, and only then it was because income was delayed to another accounting year.

[cruzFOX]

It all feels like the club is constipated!

there I said it ! 🥴

[Sharpe's Fox]

48 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

From the athletic;

 

Leicester do not need to sell. Their issues in what has been a frozen transfer window so far have been around squad capacity. They have too many senior players. They have to make room before they can bring in new signings or risk being left with senior players on good wages being left out of the squad and unable to contribute, a prospect that makes no sense in any business model. Selling an asset doesn’t solve a problem.

This of course leaves out that we have signed players we don't want to contribute because they are deemed not to be good enough by the manager, mostly within a few months of them signing.

[jayfox26]

Wonder if the Man United fans forum is as bad as ours considering they've been an utter shit show for nearly a decade now! 

[ealingfox]

18 minutes ago, goose2010 said:

If we had strolled to a 3 / 4 nill win like what it felt like we were on for Sunday i doubt there would be as much. 

 

But we didn't.

[Cincinnati Fox]

Recruitment is key to us, it has to be right and it has to be young Hungary players with sell on value.

Somebody made the decision to change and the are culpable

[Guest itude]

14 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Some more than others

 

 

Definitely not. 90% of people base their thoughts purely on results.

But do they on just one ? I don't think they do,and there are plenty of other issues which many of us can see that are compounding this situation. I don't need to list them do I ?

[HankMarvin]

9 minutes ago, cruzFOX said:

It all feels like the club is constipated!

there I said it ! 🥴

One huge floater is definitely hard to get rid of 

[Dames]

33 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

We need to ship out before we sign anyone, it's not rock science!

 

Would you want to be paying 4 people 200k to 300k a week or 15m a year to do nothing? 

 

After shipping out Kasper Schmeichel  Khanya Leshabela on loan we still have 29 pros we have to register, sign a player that becomes 5!  

 

1    Kasper Schmeichel

2    Danny Ward

3    James Justin

4    Wesley Fofana

5    Caglar Soyuncu 

6    Ryan Bertrand

7    Jonny Evans

8    Daniel Amartey

9    Ricardo Pereira

10    Jannik Vestergaard

11    Timothy Castagne

12    Luke Thomas (UNDER 21)

13    Lewis Brunt

14    Harvey Barnes

15    Youri Tielemans

16    James Maddison

17    Marc Albrighton

18    Hamza Choudhury

19    Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall

20    Nampalys Mendy

21    Wilfred Ndidi

22    Dennis Praet

23    Boubakary Soumare

24    Thanawat Suengchitthawon

25    Jamie Vardy

26    Kelechi Iheanacho

27    Ayoze Perez

28    Khanya Leshabela (LOAN)

29    Callum Wright

30    Daniel Iversen

31    George Hirst

32    Josh Eppiah

33    Jakub Stolarczyk

I see at least 5 on that list (Brunt, Suengchitthawon, Wright, Hirst, Eppiah) that won't be drawing high wages and arguably have no immediate short term future here and 2/3 of them no long term future either. They can easily be left out and loaned out for peanuts. If they are the ones that are holding us up from getting players in then something is really wrong. 

 

 

[Gravel]

I' m going to start a thread asking if FoxesTalk has ever been previously so  pessimistic that we've been driven to start a new doom and gloom thread every 5 minutes.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

16 minutes ago, Babylon said:

It wasn’t until Covid, and only then it was because income was delayed to another accounting year.

OK, we shouldn't have let it get to the point where we had the worst turnover to wage ration in the league. 

[Babylon]

17 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

I said it was a mess the other week and also have said that we’d started being run poorly. I’d row back on that a bit now, some poor decisions have been made that are hurting us now but we might have got away with had we got into Europe this year. My sense is that the club has seen the errors made and is trying to not make them again.
 

What would amount to being run poorly would be selling a prized asset and then adding more bloat to the squad without shifting the deadwood. Which is what a lot of people over the transfer section have been suggesting we do. You’re in a bad place when you sell your revenue-generating assets to subsidise your non-revenue generating assets.

 

Our problem almost resolves itself next year, and as I’ve said before the value of selling your asset next year is higher than selling now because other things like contracts expiring will give us far more room to use the proceeds of that asset more wisely.

They are getting paid whether you sell anybody or not. 
 

The idea around selling and reinvesting is to improve the whole of the squad. Buying young up and coming assets, to later sell at a profit…. Just like we will do with Fofana. 

[goose2010]

11 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

But we didn't.

No I know that, but does it warrant this reaction? The forum is literally awash with the same threads. We all know the situation we don't need to hear it from a slightly different angle every hour. 

[Bourbon Fox]

15 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Our problem almost resolves itself next year

Yep. This season will be something of a fallow year, but as it goes (although we'd obviously prefer different) it's not a bad year for it to happen.

 

Plenty of quality in the side, far fewer fixtures than previous seasons. We aren't going to get relegated - and if we look close to that, the owner will swing the axe because the cost of sacking Rodgers is nothing compared to the cost of a season in the Championship mire.

 

As many have said, if we can avoid injuries we actually stand a fair chance of improving on last year's return - be that a cup or a decent league place, or both.

 

Worst case scenario for me is a mid-table finish, and then wait for the fireworks in summer when we clear the players that are out of contract. Then we'll see if Rodgers has done enough to be trusted with his rebuild. 

 

By that time the King Power coffers will be refilled and things will look much rosier.

 

In the context of the last ten years our trajectory is looking good. There are cycles and we're in a transition - unfortunately the way things are lining up, it will drag out a little. There's still plenty to look forward to this season but we need to recognise that we have a bit of a plateau to cross before we can look up again.

 

Can we stop having these threads yet?

[coolhandfox]

11 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

This of course leaves out that we have signed players we don't want to contribute because they are deemed not to be good enough by the manager, mostly within a few months of them signing.

All clubs make mistakes in the market. 

 

It is about making as few as possible and moving them on quickly when it does work out. 

 

Take West Ham for example they are trying to move on Vlašić and Benrahma who cost a combined 50m and have played less than 90 games between them. 

[lcfc278]

46 minutes ago, Cincinnati Fox said:

Recruitment is key to us, it has to be right and it has to be young Hungary players with sell on value.

Somebody made the decision to change and the are culpable

I've heard some good things about Szoboszlai at RB Leipzig and Zalan Vancsa's meant to be a wonderkid. Some good Hungary players.

[coolhandfox]

54 minutes ago, Cincinnati Fox said:

Recruitment is key to us, it has to be right and it has to be young Hungary players with sell on value.

Somebody made the decision to change and the are culpable

Daka 22, Soumare 22, Fofana 19 when we brought them

 

3 of our last 6 signings have been young hungry players, hardly a massive change.

 

Our model has always been young players or players past their prime for example Evans.

 

Not much has changed 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Lako42]

2 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

From the athletic;

 

Leicester do not need to sell. Their issues in what has been a frozen transfer window so far have been around squad capacity. They have too many senior players. They have to make room before they can bring in new signings or risk being left with senior players on good wages being left out of the squad and unable to contribute, a prospect that makes no sense in any business model. Selling an asset doesn’t solve a problem.

So in a way we have been ran poorly 

 

 

We've dished out excellent contracts to poor players and the reason we can't move them on is because they have no incentive to leave. 

 

We've consistently under this leadership team given contracts to injury prone players, long contracts to squad players and generally made it too nice an environment for players who need to move on. 

 

It might not be the same as running the club into the ground but we have definitely created this situation ourselves. 

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Beechey said:

Can I make the next thread?

I think it should be a vote ..

[nnfox]

It's Brendan's fault.  If we hadn't bottled 4th place two years running and actually had two seasons of Champions League football, we'd be sitting pretty now.

 

[filbertway]

1 hour ago, itude said:

But do they on just one ? I don't think they do,and there are plenty of other issues which many of us can see that are compounding this situation. I don't need to list them do I ?

I fancy that had DaSilva's shot whistled the other side of the post that the general energy would be one of smugness and OTT optimism. 

 

I'm always one to judge based on performances and process rather than result.

 

If we lose a game 2-1. But the other other team have had 2 shots and we've had 20 then I'd say that's positive and a good indicator for future games.

 

If we won 2-1 with 2 shots and have 20 against us then I'd say we got very lucky and haven't played well. Then people would cry that I'm just looking for negatives.

[tsintskaro]

2 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

From the athletic;

 

Leicester do not need to sell. Their issues in what has been a frozen transfer window so far have been around squad capacity. They have too many senior players. They have to make room before they can bring in new signings or risk being left with senior players on good wages being left out of the squad and unable to contribute, a prospect that makes no sense in any business model. Selling an asset doesn’t solve a problem.

Club cant get rid of deadwood or just sell average player for 2 years straight now.

sounds like a "problem" to me 

[lifted*fox]