Harry Souttar

[Mickyblueeyes]

If we are applying logic here. Signing a player for £10-£15m, we are hoping that player fetches us north of £25m in a few years. It’s always a risk but that is how we operate in the market. If the price is £20m it’s probably slighter higher than we want but if our recruitment team are saying he’s our CB for next 3 years (in the PL), we may have to stomach it given it’s the Jan window.

[StonyFox]

We'd have had the two tallest players to play for Australia if we get him. Another reason why he's perfect for us, having never seen him play!

Edited 20 January 2023 by StonyFox

[Lambert09]

I’m really hopeful for this lad. Seems a decent character as well. 
 

Surely we don’t get bitten on a player not being suited to rodgers ball twice. we must have scouted enough to make sure. 

 

but just look at these (from last year)… it would be so nice being excited by every corner once again.  I used to always think there was a chance, but that left us when maguire left. it’s about time we made use of maddison’s delivery 

 

 

Edited 21 January 2023 by Lambert09

[Aus Fox]

He is imo the perfect signing for us, I’d go as far to say, if we did pay £20 million for him, we’d make a huge profit on him in about 3 years time.

He would instantly improve our back line and I think with him, Faes and Kristiansen and Castagne as our back 4 we’d soon move away from the bottom 6.

I think the money set out in the transfer fee isn’t even that important, it’s what we are going to pay him. If we can get him in and Soyuncu and Vestergaard leave and he’s on less money than either of those, it’s a great bit of business.

[Aus Fox]

13 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

I’m really hopeful for this lad. Seems a decent character as well. 
 

Surely we don’t get bitten on a player not being suited to rodgers ball twice. we must have scouted enough to make sure. 

 

but just look at these (from last year)… it would be so nice being excited by every corner once again.  I used to always think there was a chance, but that left us when maguire left. it’s about time we made use of maddison’s delivery 

 

 

When was the last time we had a CB score a goal for us?

[mozartfox]

2 hours ago, Aus Fox said:

When was the last time we had a CB score a goal for us?

John Sjoberg 1969.

[Sly]

2 hours ago, Aus Fox said:

When was the last time we had a CB score a goal for us?

Evans 9th December 2021? 

[Lambert09]

2 hours ago, Aus Fox said:

When was the last time we had a CB score a goal for us?

our current cbs are probably only good for 1 a season. This lad is the type that can get  you 3-5. and more importantly prevents us conceding 3-5 from set pieces at the other end 

 

there should be much better service for him than he’s currently getting 

Edited 21 January 2023 by Lambert09

[FoxyLeon]

18 hours ago, Aleksz said:

I mean I want Rodgers to go as much as the next man, but if you’re blaming anyone for the contracts situation it should be Rudkin not Rodgers.

 

And even then, it’s the players that have the club by the balls. They’ve all had contracts on the table for a long time. 

 

Soyuncu would never sign a contract because of the way Rodgers has isolated him, whilst Rodgers's inability to recruit well cost us Champions League appearances and funds, which would have seen us keep the likes of Maddison, Tielemans and Schmeichel....Even Fofana potentially, or if they performed well, generate very good transfer fees.

 

I think I now get why our fans back Rodgers, they lack the ability to see beyond the surface level, thus see none of the above. It's like how some are complaining about a lack of investment, solely because of what Rodgers has said, yet if they did a bit of digging, they would realise he has been backed enormously, arguably too strongly. 

 

The players aren't signing contracts because Rodgers has man managed them poorly, not got good enough results to keep them, or has wasted money on players not good enough to play so we can't afford the market rate. Rudkin actually signed the players....So clearly he's not the issue, him and Puel had tremendous recruitment. 

[ClaphamFox]

3 hours ago, FoxyLeon said:

 

Soyuncu would never sign a contract because of the way Rodgers has isolated him, whilst Rodgers's inability to recruit well cost us Champions League appearances and funds, which would have seen us keep the likes of Maddison, Tielemans and Schmeichel....Even Fofana potentially, or if they performed well, generate very good transfer fees.

 

I think I now get why our fans back Rodgers, they lack the ability to see beyond the surface level, thus see none of the above. It's like how some are complaining about a lack of investment, solely because of what Rodgers has said, yet if they did a bit of digging, they would realise he has been backed enormously, arguably too strongly. 

 

The players aren't signing contracts because Rodgers has man managed them poorly, not got good enough results to keep them, or has wasted money on players not good enough to play so we can't afford the market rate. Rudkin actually signed the players....So clearly he's not the issue, him and Puel had tremendous recruitment. 

We’re 18th in the net spending table over five years. All Premier League clubs of a comparable size have spent more in net terms. How does that equate to Rodgers being backed ‘enormously’?

 

Net spend table

Edited 21 January 2023 by ClaphamFox

[ceebeefox]

5 hours ago, mozartfox said:

John Sjoberg 1969.

Ha! In the O’Neill era I used to have a quid on Elliott, Taggert and Walsh to score first and won a lot of money! And unlike this shower, when we did score first, we won.

[hejammy]

29 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

We’re 18th in the net spending table over five years. All Premier League clubs of a comparable size have spent more in net terms. How does that equate to Rodgers being backed ‘enormously’?

 

Net spend table

Thing is, where do we sit in the spend table? It's all well and good looking at net spend, but most for the teams around us have not had sales of £60-£80m for one player etc for most of these years. We have spent lots. We are (were) just very good at spotting those bargains and selling on for big. 

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, hejammy said:

Thing is, where do we sit in the spend table? It's all well and good looking at net spend, but most for the teams around us have not had sales of £60-£80m for one player etc for most of these years. We have spent lots. We are (were) just very good at spotting those bargains and selling on for big. 

This always confuses me, as why does that matter? Surely net spend is most important, and the fact we sold 3, 4 or 5 expensive players is irrelevant as they were ours to sell and previously paid for/developed, and I recognise that I could be being dumb, but…..   

[hejammy]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

This always confuses me, as why does that matter? Surely net spend is most important, and the fact we sold 3, 4 or 5 expensive players is irrelevant as they were ours to sell and previously paid for/developed, and I recognise that I could be being dumb, but…..   

Net spend is total with incoming minus outgoings. What I am saying that yes over all if you take net spending then because we have been so good with selling players, I feel gross (just the incoming) player spend is more relevant when asking if "Brendon has been backed" compared to others around us. Or if we even look at the total number of players joining us compared to others too (first team). 

[Craig]

4 hours ago, FoxyLeon said:

 

Soyuncu would never sign a contract because of the way Rodgers has isolated him

Sorry but that's not true. He had agreed a move to Atletico in the summer. I'd suggest that if you were to reverse it then you'd be closer to the truth...

[ClaphamFox]

5 minutes ago, hejammy said:

Net spend is total with incoming minus outgoings. What I am saying that yes over all if you take net spending then because we have been so good with selling players, I feel gross (just the incoming) player spend is more relevant when asking if "Brendon has been backed" compared to others around us. Or if we even look at the total number of players joining us compared to others too (first team). 

I’m sorry but this is completely daft. When discussing how a manager has been backed financially, the only meaningful figure is net spend. If you’ve spent £100m gross but you had to sell your best player for £90m to afford that, you’ve still lost your best player so the overall impact on the quality of team will be significantly lower. I don’t understand why this is hard to grasp.

Edited 21 January 2023 by ClaphamFox

[Dahnsouff]

3 minutes ago, hejammy said:

Net spend is total with incoming minus outgoings. What I am saying that yes over all if you take net spending then because we have been so good with selling players, I feel gross (just the incoming) player spend is more relevant when asking if "Brendon has been backed" compared to others around us. Or if we even look at the total number of players joining us compared to others too (first team). 

Get you, net is probably the indicator of being well run, but gross is perhaps a better indicator of ambition (or recklessness)

[Bordersfox]

1 minute ago, hejammy said:

Net spend is total with incoming minus outgoings. What I am saying that yes over all if you take net spending then because we have been so good with selling players, I feel gross (just the incoming) player spend is more relevant when asking if "Brendon has been backed" compared to others around us. Or if we even look at the total number of players joining us compared to others too (first team). 

If you sell players for lots of money, you are losing assets.  Essentially you are selling your best players.  So, yes, some or all of that money might go back into the squad but essentially you are gambling on finding replacements for tried and tested players.  

 

Therefore, of course net spend is important.  Oh look Rogers we've sold every player in the squad.  But here's a 100 million pal.   If you just look at the spend he's had a wedge of cash. The reality is totally different.  An extreme example but it illustrates why net spend is important.  I'm not a Rodgers supporter but to say he's been backed massively just isn't true.

[hejammy]

3 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I’m sorry but this is completely daft. When discussing how a manager has been backed financially, the only meaningful figure is net spend. If you’ve spent £100m gross but you had to sell your best player for £90m to afford that, you’ve still lost your best player so the overall impact on the quality of team will be significantly lower. I don’t understand why this is hard to grasp.

 

1 minute ago, Bordersfox said:

If you sell players for lots of money, you are losing assets.  Essentially you are selling your best players.  So, yes, some or all of that money might go back into the squad but essentially you are gambling on finding replacements for tried and tested players.  

 

Therefore, of course net spend is important.  Oh look Rogers we've sold every player in the squad.  But here's a 100 million pal.   If you just look at the spend he's had a wedge of cash. The reality is totally different.  An extreme example but it illustrates why net spend is important.  I'm not a Rodgers supporter but to say he's been backed massively just isn't true.

I'm not saying that net spend isn't important. But when net spend is the same as others around us, then the next tool to use is surely gross spend. Teams around us could be spending next to nothing but also because they don't have the talent they also don't sell anything. Therefore would it be fair to say that chairman has backed their manager the same as in a club where 1 player every year is sold for £50+m and the chairman gives the same at least back to buy 2 or 3 players (and again the following year make a profit on at least one of these players, like Maguire - Fofana) 

 

I would certainly say that the second manager is backed better than the first even though they both seemingly have the same net spend. 

[coolhandfox]

30 minutes ago, hejammy said:

Thing is, where do we sit in the spend table? It's all well and good looking at net spend, but most for the teams around us have not had sales of £60-£80m for one player etc for most of these years. We have spent lots. We are (were) just very good at spotting those bargains and selling on for big. 

Below the likes of Villa, Wolves, Newcastle, Everton last time I looked.

 

Add to that the big 6, so we are definitely in the bottom half over the last 4 season.

 

Newcastle spent more in the last 2 windows then we have in 4 seasons.

 

Edited 21 January 2023 by coolhandfox

[Bordersfox]

9 minutes ago, hejammy said:

 

I'm not saying that net spend isn't important. But when net spend is the same as others around us, then the next tool to use is surely gross spend. Teams around us could be spending next to nothing but also because they don't have the talent they also don't sell anything. Therefore would it be fair to say that chairman has backed their manager the same as in a club where 1 player every year is sold for £50+m and the chairman gives the same at least back to buy 2 or 3 players (and again the following year make a profit on at least one of these players, like Maguire - Fofana) 

 

I would certainly say that the second manager is backed better than the first even though they both seemingly have the same net spend. 

But it's not the same as teams around us.  Its significantly lower bar Bournemouth and Brentford.  The vast majority of teams in the bottom half have a far bigger net spend.  

[LCFCJohn]

13 minutes ago, Bordersfox said:

If you sell players for lots of money, you are losing assets.  Essentially you are selling your best players.  So, yes, some or all of that money might go back into the squad but essentially you are gambling on finding replacements for tried and tested players.  

 

Therefore, of course net spend is important.  Oh look Rogers we've sold every player in the squad.  But here's a 100 million pal.   If you just look at the spend he's had a wedge of cash. The reality is totally different.  An extreme example but it illustrates why net spend is important.  I'm not a Rodgers supporter but to say he's been backed massively just isn't true.

I was going to say something like this, depends if you class the manager being backed as purely spend or holding onto assets as the reason the net spend is low is because of the latter and the fees received as we have certainly spent well generally. 
 

What I would say, is that the period that has brought the net spend down when we sold a few big assets (Maguire and Chilwell in Rodgers time) was when we were doing really well. 
 

Summer 2021 as an individual window, he was backed more than any Leicester manager has been. The club held onto all assets where selling Tielemans for example would have avoided the issue with his contract we have now and spent big on players that are either crap (Vestagaard and Bertrand) or who the jury is out as he hasn’t used them too much (until recently) and ground their confidence down (Soumare and Daka). In terms of the latter 2, I maintain they are good players and are not being used correctly.

 

That summer and the failures to buy and sell successfully whilst trying to back him so well, has subsequently contributed to the mess we are in now where we had a quiet summer in 2022.

 

So looking at the bigger picture, I do think he has been backed plenty and more so than the numbers tell on their own and we have a worse, broken squad as a result.

[Bordersfox]

1 minute ago, LCFCJohn said:

I was going to say something like this, depends if you class the manager being backed as purely spend or holding onto assets as the reason the net spend is low is because of the latter and the fees received as we have certainly spent well generally. 
 

What I would say, is that the period that has brought the net spend down when we sold a few big assets (Maguire and Chilwell in Rodgers time) was when we were doing really well. 
 

Summer 2021 as an individual window, he was backed more than any Leicester manager has been. The club held onto all assets where selling Tielemans for example would have avoided the issue with his contract we have now and spent big on players that are either crap (Vestagaard and Bertrand) or who the jury is out as he hasn’t used them too much (until recently) and ground their confidence down (Soumare and Daka). In terms of the latter 2, I maintain they are good players and are not being used correctly.

 

That summer and the failures to buy and sell successfully whilst trying to back him so well, has subsequently contributed to the mess we are in now where we had a quiet summer in 2022.

 

So looking at the bigger picture, I do think he has been backed plenty and more so than the numbers tell on their own and we have a worse, broken squad as a result.

It's quite difficult because here you get into more subjective arguments.  You could say we've lost our two best defenders in Chilwell and Maguire so spending the money we had for them was never likely to replace what we had lost.  

 

I'm not saying that is the case, as obviously recruitment has been poor, but it's more difficult to quantify what we have lost as against the money in and what we do with it.  That's why I think net spend is the most important metric as it does account for losing assets.  That's just my view.  

 

In terms of spending more than any other manager in our history I'm not convinced that's a useful comparator.  The PL has changed beyond recognition even in the last decade.  The money being thrown about is obscene.  I think that's why you really need to look at what other teams around us are doing now to judge how well Rodgers has been backed.  Whether we agree with it or not or think it's good for the game or not other teams are spending vastly more than us. Wolves, Everton even Southampton etc etc. None of that guarantees success, but that's a different discussion altogether.  

 

I maintain in this league and in comparison to other teams we consider ourselves to be competing against he hasn't been backed massively at all.  I just don't think of all the sticks that's one he can be beaten with.  

 

Should he have done/be doing better with what we have got?  Absolutely.  But compared with managers at most other comparative clubs I don't think we can say he's been given a huge transfer budget.  

 

 

[funkyrobot]

35 minutes ago, Craig said:

Sorry but that's not true. He had agreed a move to Atletico in the summer. I'd suggest that if you were to reverse it then you'd be closer to the truth...

If Soyuncu has signed a pre contract with Athletico, that still doesn’t justify his treatment from Rodgers from a footballing perspective. Almost no game time, even though with Evans out he is a better fit at CB than Amartey or Ndidi. Tielemans has been clearly off for months but he’s treated very differently, despite his form not always justifying it.

[The Fox Covert]

6 hours ago, mozartfox said:

John Sjoberg 1969.

Huth against Man City. Even if true that is far too long ago.