Rudkin

[Chocolate Teapot]

1 hour ago, SemperEadem said:

The away support want him gone.

Apparently a good chunk of support started chanting "you can't prove it's his responsibility" (don't ask me to what tune) in response to it.

[Ginger_Filbert]

18 hours ago, SemperEadem said:

The away support want him gone.

Wonder if it’ll start filtering into the home support more. It’s where it needs to be heard really. 

[walkerleeds]

20 hours ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

Apparently a good chunk of support started chanting "you can't prove it's his responsibility" (don't ask me to what tune) in response to it.

 

"We're Leicester City, we are where we are"

[Dahnsouff]

20 hours ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

Apparently a good chunk of support started chanting "you can't prove it's his responsibility" (don't ask me to what tune) in response to it.

Did they chant back, “Neither can you?”  
 

edit Let me be clear, this is no way intended to support Rudkin.

Edited 10 March by Dahnsouff

[Foxes1]

We have a good chance on Sunday at Chelski to let everybody know who we think is to blame, with it being on the beeb especially before the game, but get behind the team when the game starts.

[Wymsey]

Has anyone ever met him?

[Thefox81]

5 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Has anyone ever met him?

Yeah he was my manager for 2 years down at Leicester school of Exellence about 28 years ago. He was a t**t back then left it all pretty much to Nev Hamilton. Weasled his way up the ladder from there. Not his biggest fan

[UniFox21]

£327,000, what the **** has he done for that money?

We're an absolute bomb scare off and on the pitch and have been for years. Yet he's sitting comfy on that wage 

Fml 

 

 

[Blackstarr]

1 hour ago, UniFox21 said:

£327,000, what the **** has he done for that money?

We're an absolute bomb scare off and on the pitch and have been for years. Yet he's sitting comfy on that wage 

Fml 

 

 

The answer is very little in the last 2 years. He’s been dreadful. Then again the other way of looking at it is that he was one of the lowest paid DoFs in the PL with a salary that probably reflects his previous zero experience in the job. 
 

What we should be doing as a club is paying a higher salary to an experienced DoF that can undertake the rebuild the club desperately needs. It all comes back to Top I’m afraid 

[Unabomber]

1 hour ago, UniFox21 said:

£327,000, what the **** has he done for that money?

We're an absolute bomb scare off and on the pitch and have been for years. Yet he's sitting comfy on that wage 

Fml 

 

 

What the hell is going on with Chelsea there 

[Chelmofox]

1 hour ago, UniFox21 said:

£327,000, what the **** has he done for that money?

We're an absolute bomb scare off and on the pitch and have been for years. Yet he's sitting comfy on that wage 

Fml 

Surely the real question is why are we not paying someone who would excel in the role the going rate?

 

Man City and Newcastle;s salaries dont look dodgy do they?

[los dedos]

1 hour ago, UniFox21 said:

£327,000, what the **** has he done for that money?

We're an absolute bomb scare off and on the pitch and have been for years. Yet he's sitting comfy on that wage 

Fml 

 

 

I thought it was Susan Whealan that was the highest paid ?

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, UniFox21 said:

£327,000, what the **** has he done for that money?

We're an absolute bomb scare off and on the pitch and have been for years. Yet he's sitting comfy on that wage 

Fml 

 

 

You are confusing Director of football (job title) with company directors (those who make up the legal company board).  No chance Rudkin is one of those, probably the only paid director is Susan.  Top and/or others from the parent would be paid by the parent or simply non-paid shareholders.  Chelsea obviously use directorship as a way of actually paying some of their non shareholding advisors or something.

 

Edit:  Confirmed: Directors are:

Aiyawatt Srivaddhanaprabha

Apichet Srivaddhanaprabha

Shilai Liu

Susa Valerie Whelan

Edited 11 March by Jon the Hat

[guest123]

14 hours ago, Wymsey said:

Has anyone ever met him?

me and my pal saw walking around outside the ground at QPR away when we were lost trying to find a boozer. no idea what he was up to but said hello to us

[Chrysalis]

2 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

£327,000, what the **** has he done for that money?

We're an absolute bomb scare off and on the pitch and have been for years. Yet he's sitting comfy on that wage 

Fml 

 

 

Thats the combined salary of all directors.

[RoboFox]

On 09/03/2024 at 19:51, Chocolate Teapot said:

Apparently a good chunk of support started chanting "you can't prove it's his responsibility" (don't ask me to what tune) in response to it.

I can't tell what's real anymore.

 

Edited 11 March by RoboFox

[Chocolate Teapot]

15 hours ago, Thefox81 said:

Yeah he was my manager for 2 years down at Leicester school of Exellence about 28 years ago. He was a t**t back then left it all pretty much to Nev Hamilton. Weasled his way up the ladder from there. Not his biggest fan

This would be my experience of anyone that's ever met him. Wouldn't even be this complimentary based on my own experience.

Edited 11 March by Chocolate Teapot

[Babylon]

On 09/03/2024 at 10:08, escape2victory said:

Our transfer and contract strategy has been bonkers for ages. Spending approx £128m over the years on Tielemans, Soyuncu, Amartey, Praet, Ndidi, Iheanacho, Vestergaard, and letting them all run their contracts down and leave for free, awful strategy and been a soft touch on contracts for years.

 

We need a proper sporting director dealing with this, Rudkin isn’t capable. I remember Pearson not being impressed with his promotion into role in 14/15 

I doubt we wanted to have them all leave on a free. Many were offered contracts long before the ends of their current ones, but they saw the chance to get a free and to keep the power like so many players are now, by running the contract down. 

 

Then they changed the FFP rules, meaning we had to start cutting back. So any renewals, were potentially going to be 30% of what they were currently on. To stay within the wages being no more than 70% of turnover. 

 

Add into that we couldn't afford to buy people, so you then end up in the scenario whereby it was better to keep players and lose them on a free than letting them go on the cheap and not be able to afford a better or equal quality replacement. That was a decision to try and fend off our troubles, with hindsight you can say the wrong one. But it's one I at least understand. 

 

Then chuck in relegation and you're not in a position to really offer contracts and players unlikely to sign even if you do. FFP changes have played a massive part in our contract issues; it wasn't by choice. 

 

That's not to say mistakes weren't made, of course they were. We should never have allowed Rodgers to bring in Congerton and the raft of failed transfers that followed . Then sticking with Rodgers when we really should have gotten rid. Then, getting rid of it when we did and had nothing lined up. Poor decisions that have just compounded problems we were already going to face. 

 

[escape2victory]

17 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I doubt we wanted to have them all leave on a free. Many were offered contracts long before the ends of their current ones, but they saw the chance to get a free and to keep the power like so many players are now, by running the contract down. 

 

Then they changed the FFP rules, meaning we had to start cutting back. So any renewals, were potentially going to be 30% of what they were currently on. To stay within the wages being no more than 70% of turnover. 

 

Add into that we couldn't afford to buy people, so you then end up in the scenario whereby it was better to keep players and lose them on a free than letting them go on the cheap and not be able to afford a better or equal quality replacement. That was a decision to try and fend off our troubles, with hindsight you can say the wrong one. But it's one I at least understand. 

 

Then chuck in relegation and you're not in a position to really offer contracts and players unlikely to sign even if you do. FFP changes have played a massive part in our contract issues; it wasn't by choice. 

 

That's not to say mistakes weren't made, of course they were. We should never have allowed Rodgers to bring in Congerton and the raft of failed transfers that followed . Then sticking with Rodgers when we really should have gotten rid. Then, getting rid of it when we did and had nothing lined up. Poor decisions that have just compounded problems we were already going to face. 

 

Good explanation and I wasn’t aware of the FFP changes so that makes some sense but I still think we should have been more ruthless with some of them. Tielemans the prime one really, summer of 21 had just scored the winner in the FA cup final. His stock was high,  2 years left on his deal, should of sold him then if not prepared to sign a new deal, wouldn’t of been short of buying clubs that summer 

[BertFill]

On 09/03/2024 at 19:51, Chocolate Teapot said:

Apparently a good chunk of support started chanting "you can't prove it's his responsibility" (don't ask me to what tune) in response to it.

It's hard to be sure

It's hard to be sure

Exactly what the cause is of the financial situation our club finds itself in

It's hard to be sure

[Tommy G]

4 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

£327,000, what the **** has he done for that money?

We're an absolute bomb scare off and on the pitch and have been for years. Yet he's sitting comfy on that wage 

Fml 

 

 

Nothing as that's Susan Whelans salary for starters 

[lcfc278]

8 minutes ago, escape2victory said:

Good explanation and I wasn’t aware of the FFP changes so that makes some sense but I still think we should have been more ruthless with some of them. Tielemans the prime one really, summer of 21 had just scored the winner in the FA cup final. His stock was high,  2 years left on his deal, should of sold him then if not prepared to sign a new deal, wouldn’t of been short of buying clubs that summer 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but there would have been uproar if we'd sold him that summer.

[Babylon]

23 minutes ago, escape2victory said:

Good explanation and I wasn’t aware of the FFP changes so that makes some sense but I still think we should have been more ruthless with some of them. Tielemans the prime one really, summer of 21 had just scored the winner in the FA cup final. His stock was high,  2 years left on his deal, should of sold him then if not prepared to sign a new deal, wouldn’t of been short of buying clubs that summer 

With hindsight, but did we have any offers? Look at where he ended up, and that happened because there were question marks over whether he can ever sustain good form. Chuck in the fact that the summer of 21 we had only just had a crowd back for our game, clubs had lost 10's of millions due to COVID and transfer spend was down by a billion or two overall. 

 

Not only that but the club would have been slaughtered for selling him. They would have been slated no matter what they did. 

Edited 11 March by Babylon

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

I doubt we wanted to have them all leave on a free. Many were offered contracts long before the ends of their current ones, but they saw the chance to get a free and to keep the power like so many players are now, by running the contract down. 

 

Then they changed the FFP rules, meaning we had to start cutting back. So any renewals, were potentially going to be 30% of what they were currently on. To stay within the wages being no more than 70% of turnover. 

 

Add into that we couldn't afford to buy people, so you then end up in the scenario whereby it was better to keep players and lose them on a free than letting them go on the cheap and not be able to afford a better or equal quality replacement. That was a decision to try and fend off our troubles, with hindsight you can say the wrong one. But it's one I at least understand. 

 

Then chuck in relegation and you're not in a position to really offer contracts and players unlikely to sign even if you do. FFP changes have played a massive part in our contract issues; it wasn't by choice. 

 

That's not to say mistakes weren't made, of course they were. We should never have allowed Rodgers to bring in Congerton and the raft of failed transfers that followed . Then sticking with Rodgers when we really should have gotten rid. Then, getting rid of it when we did and had nothing lined up. Poor decisions that have just compounded problems we were already going to face. 

 

The rules changed in Europe when we hadn't qualified for Europe and they cannot seriously have expected us to do so again after a summer of saying we couldn't buy anyone until we sold fringe or soon to be out of contract players for unreasonable prices.

 

I'm not having that as a mitigating circumstances for the board of our football club. Stefan Borson raised a very valid point last night on our podcast that the black hole from the drop in revenue from failing to qualify for Europe pushed us to the brink, the lack of flexibility for this scenario is a huge red flag in the running of our club and rips away most of the sympathy.

[Daggers]

On 09/03/2024 at 19:51, Chocolate Teapot said:

Apparently a good chunk of support started chanting "you can't prove it's his responsibility" (don't ask me to what tune) in response to it.

How do you know?

How do you kno-oh-ow?

That's just supposition

Oh, how do you know?