A Call for Change: A Footballing Reset at Leicester City Football Club

[inckley fox]

50 minutes ago, ElusiveEd said:

If I can combine my sadness with my anger it's towards the feeling that Top has a more deep rooted allegiance and faith towards Rudkin than he does towards his fathers legacy and what it would have meant to him to have built upon it. 

 

It seems and feels like it's only us fans that hold dearly what Vichai did for us.

We can easily let our emotions get in the way of our judgement with KP, and especially Vichai.

 

He also made his mistakes. There were suggestions in the press that he was partly responsible for Pearson's first exit due to his desire for 'a more continental style of football' (I remember managing to find the link years ago but can't for the life of me track it down now). He appointed Sven and presided over his misspending, as well as that which followed our league win, and therefore blew any chance of us seriously capitalising on 2015-16.

 

And of course - while Vichai's leadership certainly allowed our success to happen in a way that previous owners never could have, and some of his key decisions were undeniably spot on - the cheques he signed were not for the sums of money which typically lead to league titles. The 3.5m he parted with for Morgan, Drinkwater, Vardy, Mahrez, Albrighton, Simpson and Fuchs shouldn't have been enough to bring in the bulk of a PL-winning side. That was down to unthinkably and unprecedentedly good recruitment under Pearson and Walsh. They accumulated 100s of millions worth of talent for about 30m, and that's what made our success so special - that it wasn't down to a chairman's immense wealth, but rather to excellent management (predominantly, to my mind, by the managers and their teams).

 

Either way, in his defence Top was by his father's side for all those great achievements. According to some reports it was he who pulled the plug on the post-Palace Pearson sacking, which allowed the Great Escape to happen. He presided over Rodgers' appointment and the FA Cup and Charity Shield wins. He's contributed a great deal from his own pocket - more, unless I'm mistaken, than was the norm under his father. If we're going to credit Vichai for the success, Top - like Rudkin, while I'm at it - would also deserve a fair share.

 

Personally I thought Vichai was a very good chairman, and while I'm fond of his son and still hope he starts to do the right things, I doubt he will and can't argue with the fact that he's not been up to the task so far. But I also think that a big reason for our crowd holding back as much as they do with their criticism for the board, and also for the sense of absolute mourning/anger for someone that they cherished letting them down so badly, is that they always overstated KP's role in our success.

 

Yes, it was crucial. But Vichai's Dream was always no more than an improbable dream. I'm sure he had lots of other improbable dreams that never worked out for him. In our case, Pearson, Walsh, Shakey, Claudio and a bunch of players who proved themselves to be many times bigger than their apparent worth were - more than even Vichai - the ones who actually pulled it off.

 

If we'd seen that, we'd have been quicker to question Top, and far less shellshocked when it dawned on us that he, along with Rudkin and whoever else, was ruining the club.

[Iwebema]

30 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

One of the reasons why I'm sometimes slower to pinpoint Rudkin as the root of all our woes is that I'd heard something very similar to this from one of those 'I know someone who knows someone' sources. The sort of thing you don't feel the need to repeat until someone else says it.

 

The suggestion back then was that he's extremely personable where not everyone else is, solidly professional where others aren't, willing to basically run everything by himself because others won't, and also one of the only people among the higher-ups who has the first clue about football. It struck me that I'd known people like that in my working life, and that they're often the ones who take the flak for others' negligence and incompetence.

 

Of course, he deserves criticism because he's paid a huge amount of money for running the football side of the business, and it's evidently badly-run. But it did get me wondering whether he's the willing fool who's basically keeping things ticking over, and whether the whole thing could come crashing down if we got rid of him.

 

That said, apparently it's already crashing down regardless.

 

So yeah, fire him.

For what it's worth, I've got it on good authority that a number of longer serving senior players like him and think he's being unfairly scapegoated.

 

I've never been sure if that's just because he does throw money at them, over paid contracts etc.

 

For me he and a couple of others have been the constants and therefore must bare the brunt, whether it is incompetence or as you suggest he is covering too much and honourably set himself up for failure, changes have to happen, the list of issues stretching back years is too long now. 

 

 

[Nolucklcfc]

20 minutes ago, lcfcbluearmy said:

I think I've said this before when I have heard this sort of thing, if this is what he is good at and the reason he is failing is that he is spread too thin then don't fire him move him aside and get him some competent help. But not admitting that you are spread to thin and can't do your job properly is a huge issue in itself and just increases the problems and stresses until you or the club break. 

 

Whatever the reason it dosen't change the fact that there needs to be change

Exactly, if it’s that hard demand help. 

[Mickyblueeyes]

4 hours ago, Finnegan said:

Yeah and, look, building structures that increase the club's commercial revenue in a sense that can be used to offset our PSR / FFP should be a priority and should have been handled with more urgency but stadium development and Seagrave weren't mutually exclusive, it wasn't one or the other. Money isn't the hold up for the stadium expansion, is it, it's been a combination of politics and the nosedive in on-field performance over the last three years. It was always going to take longer to do major work to the ground in the city than it was to build on a golf course in the middle of nowhere (which was still held up considerably.)

Part in bold is where we can agree. I’m also quite vary of the risk of such a large complex which will be hard to sell but easy to leverage if the club continues its demise. Seagrave for me was needed but not at the size developed, room for development fine provided the club created the income streams to do so. Infrastructure can become liability for such a volatile industry. 

[Ricey]

Being spread too thin is not an excuse for getting big decisions, like managerial appointments wrong. It’s not an excuse for a lack of direction, joined-up thinking or communication. It’s only really an excuse for slow transfer dealings.

 

As for the players liking him, that’s partly the problem. Everyone has got too cosy and close, there is no ruthlessness or standards anymore.

[blueharmie]

28 minutes ago, Ricey said:

Being spread too thin is not an excuse for getting big decisions, like managerial appointments wrong. It’s not an excuse for a lack of direction, joined-up thinking or communication. It’s only really an excuse for slow transfer dealings.

 

As for the players liking him, that’s partly the problem. Everyone has got too cosy and close, there is no ruthlessness or standards anymore.

Spot on

[CosbehFox]

You can’t moan about being spread too lightly and then end up out of the country for five days like he did last January window. Top was complicit in that cos it was his bleeding wedding ! 

[The_77]

3 hours ago, dannythefox said:

I honestly couldn’t give a shit he needs to go and yes he probably needs to look at the way he’s running the club or make some better decisions. 

I’m not saying he should stay at all, we just need a serious change how the decisions are made to go along with it. 

[Wink84]

4 hours ago, dooflip said:

Mark albrighton stated on a recent interview that the move to seagrave saw a big change in the players attitudes.

They were gifted a multi million pound health spa where they could go and get a massage or a treatment whenever they wanted.

 

just putting that out there. That came directly from one out of very loyal servants.

It's the small percentages in football at the elite level. This could be a reason for a lack of fight? Loss of determination? Are our players just pampered footballers?

[South Shire Fox]

Chris Sutton saying on 606 he thinks the board just went it up as they went along in appointing Ruud. 2 wins against us and that was enough for the job

[CL Fox]

7 hours ago, Iwebema said:

For what it's worth, I've got it on good authority that a number of longer serving senior players like him and think he's being unfairly scapegoated.

 

I've never been sure if that's just because he does throw money at them, over paid contracts etc.

 

For me he and a couple of others have been the constants and therefore must bare the brunt, whether it is incompetence or as you suggest he is covering too much and honourably set himself up for failure, changes have to happen, the list of issues stretching back years is too long now. 

 

 

There's plenty at the club that don't like him from what I've heard. 

[Claudio Fannieri]

Can people stop using Seagrave as an excuse, it’s a world class facility, the issue isn’t a plush training ground with top resources, that is exactly the right decision to be made, the issue is we haven’t backed that up with the right standards and culture. 
 

Maresca showed how this facility could be used to drive a winning mentality and culture. I also have no doubt Pearson in his pomp would have done as well. 
 

The issue is not the facility but the quality and character of the people utilising it.  

[Stadt]

12 hours ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

I see the Athletic are saying that we are slow at doing deals because Rudkin is spread too thinly. We knew this, and also obviously he lacks competencies, but just your daily reminder of the amateur circus that is our football club. 

He’s just shit, not spread too thinly - his other roles pale in comparison to being the DoF.

[ProjectReset]

Who remembers when we broke our transfer record to sign Youri Tielemans & then allowed him to leave for free (as in we literally got absolutely nothing for him)? 

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

18 minutes ago, ProjectReset said:

Who remembers when we broke our transfer record to sign Youri Tielemans & then allowed him to leave for free (as in we literally got absolutely nothing for him)? 

Could say the same about a lot of other players we spent reasonable fees on 

[Raj]

 

 

Dont know why your all moaning you can get this now for just a tenner!

 

 

[FrankieADZ]

5 hours ago, ProjectReset said:

Who remembers when we broke our transfer record to sign Youri Tielemans & then allowed him to leave for free (as in we literally got absolutely nothing for him)? 

dont speak facts, 

 

its kinda sad when some of our "fans" cant take the blinkers off and see the sorry state the club is in

[ClaphamFox]

5 hours ago, ProjectReset said:

Who remembers when we broke our transfer record to sign Youri Tielemans & then allowed him to leave for free (as in we literally got absolutely nothing for him)? 

I remember. I also remember that we weren’t receiving any decent bids for him. It’s difficult to sell a player if nobody wants to make a serious offer for him. 

[RoboFox]

I love the FA cup goal as much as the next supporter, maybe even more so than having a pop at Rudkin and KPFC.

 

But it was reported that the club tried to retain Tielemans who turned down the offer of a new contract, instead opting to walk away on a free because he had ideas above Leicester City (maybe justifiably so) and felt he deserved to play in the Champions League. 

 

He knew he was leaving so the bloke became more concerned with the Seagrave all-you-can-eat buffet than keeping the club in the Premier League. 

 

There are much bigger, more viable sticks with which to beat the board with IMO. 

 

Edited 21 January by RoboFox

[Chrysalis]

16 hours ago, South Shire Fox said:

Chris Sutton saying on 606 he thinks the board just went it up as they went along in appointing Ruud. 2 wins against us and that was enough for the job

Yeah its a BBC article in the LCFC section, I agree with him.

[Paninistickers]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

I remember. I also remember that we weren’t receiving any decent bids for him. It’s difficult to sell a player if nobody wants to make a serious offer for him. 

Yep. Indeed. We have to avoid hindsight and revisionist stuff here. 

 

We couldn't get a buyer in summer 2022. As he was (rightly) being paid extraordinarily well for being integral to a top 7 outfit as we were at the time. 

 

I can recall at the time thinking we'd be better off with him here, bolstering our top 7 chances and losing him on a free than the alternative of losing him for 5m-10m-15m and seeing that era fall apart!for the sake of a quick buck. 

 

What transpired,. obvs, is we got the worst of both worlds. 

[ProjectReset]

3 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Yep. Indeed. We have to avoid hindsight and revisionist stuff here. 

 

We couldn't get a buyer in summer 2022. As he was (rightly) being paid extraordinarily well for being integral to a top 7 outfit as we were at the time. 

 

I can recall at the time thinking we'd be better off with him here, bolstering our top 7 chances and losing him on a free than the alternative of losing him for 5m-10m-15m and seeing that era fall apart!for the sake of a quick buck. 

 

What transpired,. obvs, is we got the worst of both worlds. 

Whilst I understand your point in relation to the choice between losing him cheaply or keeping him to bolster our position, can you not see that a lack of planning & foresight led us to a scenario whereby we only had two weak options to choose from? 

 

It's not revisionist to say that we should never have allowed the scenario to materialise in the first place. It's bad planning, bad management & bad business. 

 

 

[Paninistickers]

4 minutes ago, ProjectReset said:

Whilst I understand your point in relation to the choice between losing him cheaply or keeping him to bolster our position, can you not see that a lack of planning & foresight led us to a scenario whereby we only had two weak options to choose from? 

 

It's not revisionist to say that we should never have allowed the scenario to materialise in the first place. It's bad planning, bad management & bad business. 

 

 

There's multiple counts of bad management examples to select from. This particular example is like persisting with a speeding offence when bang to rights for manslaughter.

 

The main mistake with Youri was upon his signature. He shrewdly insisted on a three year deal. When we wanted 4 or 5. He knew from the get go he might need to move himself from City..

 

In hindsight, for 40m quid, to agree to a three year deal was weak negotiating. That's the gotcha in this saga, not the eventual free he left on. 

 

 

[ProjectReset]

10 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

There's multiple counts of bad management examples to select from. This particular example is like persisting with a speeding offence when bang to rights for manslaughter.

 

The main mistake with Youri was upon his signature. He shrewdly insisted on a three year deal. When we wanted 4 or 5. He knew from the get go he might need to move himself from City..

 

In hindsight, for 40m quid, to agree to a three year deal was weak negotiating. That's the gotcha in this saga, not the eventual free he left on. 

 

 

Fair enough mate - I hear what you're saying and respect your opinion. I think it's an example of our club not being managed very well. It's also okay for you to feel there are better examples of mismanagement 

[LCFCJohn]

22 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

There's multiple counts of bad management examples to select from. This particular example is like persisting with a speeding offence when bang to rights for manslaughter.

 

The main mistake with Youri was upon his signature. He shrewdly insisted on a three year deal. When we wanted 4 or 5. He knew from the get go he might need to move himself from City..

 

In hindsight, for 40m quid, to agree to a three year deal was weak negotiating. That's the gotcha in this saga, not the eventual free he left on. 

 

 

He did sign a 4 year deal, in 2019 after the loan and left in 2023?