Guest Posted 19 December 2005 Posted 19 December 2005 Gillespie and Walker were on big contracts, awarded by Peter Taylor and Micky Adams. They would have wanted their current salaries or something very close to stay, which would have meant spending a third the wage bill on just 2 players who are past their peak. Walker wanted to stay, and was allegedly prepared to take a cut in wages, but CL wants his players to live in the county, and Walker was not prepared to do this, which is why he left. Allegedly.
Michael Doyle Posted 19 December 2005 Posted 19 December 2005 Good post wirralsimon I agree, I dident like it but reality of no money means we are trying to build a squad around players that show potential. When they do we will have to sell them to pay the debt of and this will provide more oppurtnity for others. I just hope that we can get more money for the team through extended cup runs and hopefully the odd TV appearance. Fastern your seat belt its going to be a long journey COME ON THE MIGHTY FOXES MadMick
Michael Doyle Posted 19 December 2005 Posted 19 December 2005 Lisa You are correct. However what you dident say is that even with Walkers cut in salary he would have been the highest payed player on the books at nearly three times as much as the other players. Whilst he is a good Goalkeeper CL needs to look to the future and is doing so with Henderson (an Aussie) and the savings on Walkers wages he has bought Douglas in to guide this development along with the goal keeping coaches at the club. I would love to have seen him stay but he is out injured a lot as he is getting on a bit and I think CL call was the right one. COME ON YOU MIGHTY FOXES MadMick
Thracian Posted 19 December 2005 Posted 19 December 2005 That's one of my philosophies. All these stats do is make people think 'what if....' and 'only if....'. The problem is that the only stats that count are goals for and goals against. We currently have too many of one, and not enough of the other. If a bloke scores a perfectly legitimate goal and it is ruled out by mistake it may not be bad luck but it doesn't help. It's forever happening, to Hammond on at least two occasions and to Van Persie yesterday as a further example, cos the game is so fast, officials can't look in two places at once and the authorities won't introduce video technology to offer some chance of fair decision making for once. It would help if assistant referees only flagged when they are sure of something rather than when they simply believe a guy might be offside. If a few teams get whacked for playing their spoiling offside tactics hard luck (they might adjust their thinking) but far too many goals are ruled out through human error or because of officials responding to crowd reaction despite later proof that the decisions were wrong. Like you say it's goals that count but if Leicester's keep getting ruled out unfairly (it happened at Derby too) then it means we've got to score more times than normal to make sure a few count and so we actually get some points. Some say these things even out in the end but that's bullshit and another way of suggesting that, somehow, there's an outside force influencing events. In any case I don't want things "evening out". I'd like the right decisions in the first place, I'd like the benefit of video technology and I'd like officials to be far more answerable for bad decisions than they are now. I know how corrupt people are in other walks of life and simply do not believe that the football authorities have somehow cornered the market in human saints when it comes to referees. Indeed things have been proved in the past (Forest in Europe) despite it being extremely dificult, and I believe there's a betting scandal being investigated right now involving people within the game, so one has to assume the vast majority of corruption goes undetected (as it does in other sports, sadly). Even the smallest shops have electronic tills now (partly cos they don't trust their staff, though some will say it isn't) and I don't see why refs need to be trusted any more than is unavoidable when video replays can decide major issues anyway. It's not nice thinking that way (especially when you want to believe that the vast majority of officials are beyond reproach) but some events on football fields defy sensible explanation (and I'm not talking about either Hammond Saturday or Van Persie cos both were tight and extremely difficult decisions to make in an instant). Anyone might have got those wrong yet video would have helped greatly. But courtrooms, newspapers etc are full every day of cases and crime stories where people you "thought would never do that" have shown themselves to be untrustworthy. Video would additionally serve to combat that, not altogether, but to a significant extent. Irrelevent? Well if Leicester had got the six more points they could probably have got based on video evidence, Levein wouldn't have his head on some people's chopping block, Leicester would be challenging from mid-table rather than nearer the basement and the confidence might therefore have been there to make a proper bid for a play-off place. All ifs and buts but those "goals" did go in and had they counted they WOULD have improved out situation and altered some people's perception of Levein's achievements which, in my view, are still considerable.
Janx Posted 19 December 2005 Posted 19 December 2005 Absolutely correct and well done for having the bollocks to say it. I've said the same and been shot down for being anti-Levein and therefore wrong. Half the people on here see Levein as the messiah. 18th in the Championship and the man can do no wrong! Actually NOT absolutely correct, surely "if his Auntie was a MAN, she would be his uncle..."
Guest Posted 19 December 2005 Posted 19 December 2005 Thracian, when teams are doing well, decisions do tend to go with them. In yesterday's game, had it been Drogba scoring, not Van Persie, I'm sure that the goal would have stood. That, unfortunately, is life. It doesn't just happen in football either. We always seem to fall foul of the officials, whether we are doing well or not. However, I don't believe in using video technology. It is the controversial decisions that give us something to talk about in the pub afterwards. Although we have more than our fair share, I wouldn't have it any other way. When we win, it's more special, because it feels like we've taken the world on and won, not just the 11 men of the opposition. It's what makes our fans different to most, I believe.
Thracian Posted 19 December 2005 Posted 19 December 2005 Thracian, when teams are doing well, decisions do tend to go with them. In yesterday's game, had it been Drogba scoring, not Van Persie, I'm sure that the goal would have stood. That, unfortunately, is life. It doesn't just happen in football either. We always seem to fall foul of the officials, whether we are doing well or not. However, I don't believe in using video technology. It is the controversial decisions that give us something to talk about in the pub afterwards. Although we have more than our fair share, I wouldn't have it any other way. When we win, it's more special, because it feels like we've taken the world on and won, not just the 11 men of the opposition. It's what makes our fans different to most, I believe. I do love you way of looking at things. You're like a breath of fresh air. Why bother with refs at all really - that'll stoke it up for the pub afterwards.
holly Posted 19 December 2005 Posted 19 December 2005 prob a stupid thing to say but i am gunna say it anyway! ok people keep saying that CL needs to produce results if i am not mistaken he isnt the one playing the players are so therefore shouldnt they be the ones producing the results???? CL puts out what he thinks is the most capable team and the rest is down to the players, they are the ones playing!!! ok some of his team dicisions arent the best granted, BUT.... he is doing a good job the team play well for the majority of the time, but it doesnt always go our way, isnt that what its about! besides not that its gunna happen now anyway, but whats the point in trying to go up now anyway we would come straight back down again, i would rather stick in this league till we have the perfect promotion team!!!!
Guest Posted 19 December 2005 Posted 19 December 2005 I do love you way of looking at things. You're like a breath of fresh air. Why bother with refs at all really - that'll stoke it up for the pub afterwards. What? No refs? Don't you think CL's getting enough stick already? Without poor ref's there'll be no distractions!
filbertway Posted 19 December 2005 Posted 19 December 2005 Lisa You are correct. However what you dident say is that even with Walkers cut in salary he would have been the highest payed player on the books at nearly three times as much as the other players. Whilst he is a good Goalkeeper CL needs to look to the future and is doing so with Henderson (an Aussie) and the savings on Walkers wages he has bought Douglas in to guide this development along with the goal keeping coaches at the club. I would love to have seen him stay but he is out injured a lot as he is getting on a bit and I think CL call was the right one. COME ON YOU MIGHTY FOXES MadMick Isn't henderson about 28/29 though?
l444ry Posted 19 December 2005 Posted 19 December 2005 If a bloke scores a perfectly legitimate goal and it is ruled out by mistake it may not be bad luck but it doesn't help. It's forever happening, to Hammond on at least two occasions and to Van Persie yesterday as a further example, cos the game is so fast, officials can't look in two places at once and the authorities won't introduce video technology to offer some chance of fair decision making for once. It would help if assistant referees only flagged when they are sure of something rather than when they simply believe a guy might be offside. If a few teams get whacked for playing their spoiling offside tactics hard luck (they might adjust their thinking) but far too many goals are ruled out through human error or because of officials responding to crowd reaction despite later proof that the decisions were wrong. Like you say it's goals that count but if Leicester's keep getting ruled out unfairly (it happened at Derby too) then it means we've got to score more times than normal to make sure a few count and so we actually get some points. Some say these things even out in the end but that's bullshit and another way of suggesting that, somehow, there's an outside force influencing events. In any case I don't want things "evening out". I'd like the right decisions in the first place, I'd like the benefit of video technology and I'd like officials to be far more answerable for bad decisions than they are now. I know how corrupt people are in other walks of life and simply do not believe that the football authorities have somehow cornered the market in human saints when it comes to referees. Indeed things have been proved in the past (Forest in Europe) despite it being extremely dificult, and I believe there's a betting scandal being investigated right now involving people within the game, so one has to assume the vast majority of corruption goes undetected (as it does in other sports, sadly). Even the smallest shops have electronic tills now (partly cos they don't trust their staff, though some will say it isn't) and I don't see why refs need to be trusted any more than is unavoidable when video replays can decide major issues anyway. It's not nice thinking that way (especially when you want to believe that the vast majority of officials are beyond reproach) but some events on football fields defy sensible explanation (and I'm not talking about either Hammond Saturday or Van Persie cos both were tight and extremely difficult decisions to make in an instant). Anyone might have got those wrong yet video would have helped greatly. But courtrooms, newspapers etc are full every day of cases and crime stories where people you "thought would never do that" have shown themselves to be untrustworthy. Video would additionally serve to combat that, not altogether, but to a significant extent. Irrelevent? Well if Leicester had got the six more points they could probably have got based on video evidence, Levein wouldn't have his head on some people's chopping block, Leicester would be challenging from mid-table rather than nearer the basement and the confidence might therefore have been there to make a proper bid for a play-off place. All ifs and buts but those "goals" did go in and had they counted they WOULD have improved out situation and altered some people's perception of Levein's achievements which, in my view, are still considerable. For crying out load, Thracian. Every team and manager in history thinks they're hard done by. It's an absolutely ludicrous argument trying to suggest that everything would be rosy in the garden if only we were more lucky, or if Referees weren't so incompetent. I'd bet if you spoke to supporters of other teams they would say how unlucky they had been against us. Whether you like to admit it or not, luck and bad decisions DO equal themselves out over the season.
Thracian Posted 19 December 2005 Posted 19 December 2005 For crying out load, Thracian. Every team and manager in history thinks they're hard done by. It's an absolutely ludicrous argument trying to suggest that everything would be rosy in the garden if only we were more lucky, or if Referees weren't so incompetent. I'd bet if you spoke to supporters of other teams they would say how unlucky they had been against us. Whether you like to admit it or not, luck and bad decisions DO equal themselves out over the season. It would be a startling statistic if they did.
Burleyfox Posted 19 December 2005 Posted 19 December 2005 I'm still to be convinced by Levein but in fairness if the team have 29 shots and score ONCE then the problem is technique/quality. Hammond will never be a regular goalscorer.
l444ry Posted 19 December 2005 Posted 19 December 2005 It would be a startling statistic if they did. "If you do get a bit of good luck, you don't really notice it as much, you only notice the bad luck. We haven't had much recently, but I believe you have to roll up your sleeves and make your own luck in this game." (Quote: Martin O'Neill) .....I rest my case Your Honour!!!!!
Head Honcho Posted 19 December 2005 Posted 19 December 2005 prob a stupid thing to say but i am gunna say it anyway! ok people keep saying that CL needs to produce results if i am not mistaken he isnt the one playing the players are so therefore shouldnt they be the ones producing the results???? CL puts out what he thinks is the most capable team and the rest is down to the players, they are the ones playing!!! ok some of his team dicisions arent the best granted, BUT.... he is doing a good job the team play well for the majority of the time, but it doesnt always go our way, isnt that what its about! besides not that its gunna happen now anyway, but whats the point in trying to go up now anyway we would come straight back down again, i would rather stick in this league till we have the perfect promotion team!!!! [/b][/b]That ain't gonna happen with Levein at the helm!
Blue Arrow Posted 19 December 2005 Posted 19 December 2005 Well TBH, if we had 29 shots (Even though the OS says 22!) then i think the answer may be a new striker, not someone like hume, a natural goalscorer with "clinical finishing." Most teams score a quarter to a third of their shots on target, if we had we could have won 4 or 5 to 1. Also, drop Douglas, from what I've seen Henderson can do a better job.
Michael Doyle Posted 20 December 2005 Posted 20 December 2005 Isn't henderson about 28/29 though? He is 30 in April (I think) but as a goal keeper he has at least 5 more years in him which gives us the opportunity to bring on some of the younger players. COME ON YOU MIGHTY FOXES MadMick
TAFKA Castroneves Posted 20 December 2005 Posted 20 December 2005 I'm pretty sure he's 31 in April, 30 now.
Michael Doyle Posted 21 December 2005 Posted 21 December 2005 What ever it is he has 4 or 5 years in him. Its about average for the tenure of a new manager. If CL stays longer he would have experienced sucess and would no doubt start rebuilding the team at or around the 4 year mark. MadMick
Bert Posted 21 December 2005 Posted 21 December 2005 I think the squad Levein has now, is the one he is hoping will be his and successful, i can see him with signings, being like O'Neil only making a few a year and making sure the squad are very close to one another and has a good team morale. he seems to have got rid of everyone/thing he doesn't want at the club and looks to be here for a wile.
Chimp Posted 21 December 2005 Posted 21 December 2005 I'm still to be convinced by Levein but in fairness if the team have 29 shots and score ONCE then the problem is technique/quality. Hammond will never be a regular goalscorer. I actually think Hammond is a good finisher, he's put the ball in the back of the net quite regularly since November, he just needs to score them from on-side positions...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.