Campaign: Sack The Board

[Sly]

Just now, Paninistickers said:

An owner could of course disband a club. But a phoenix club could be immediately set up and if the EPL / EFL were so inclined, could award the league membership to the phoenix. 

 

In that sense, owners of a club are more exposed than fans. 

 

I’m not so sure a Phoenix club would be admitted into the league though. 
 

To start with, where on earth is this club playing? Where are they training etc
 

Why should they be allowed into the league system, bypassing others that are grafting to get higher up the pyramid. 
 

 

[Dr The Singh]

All gone quite after the win????

[ozvaldo]

24 minutes ago, fox in the sox said:

Everything is not as black and white as you make it. I’m not in favour of a ‘sack the board’ protest but it doesn’t mean I’m a happy clapper who doesn’t think there have been mistakes.

It’s that black and white to thousands of us though. 
You see it differently. That’s fine. 
A vast number of us are sick of these (pretty colossal) mistakes. 

We’re doing something about it. 

[Paninistickers]

14 minutes ago, Sly said:

I’m not so sure a Phoenix club would be admitted into the league though. 
 

To start with, where on earth is this club playing? Where are they training etc
 

Why should they be allowed into the league system, bypassing others that are grafting to get higher up the pyramid. 
 

 

If a club owner maliciously closed a club down, say out of spite, it's within the league's power to hand out their golden shade elsewhere. 

 

It's not entirely unprecedented. Rangers were effectively a phoenix club and Middlesbrough back in the 80s (I think Middlesbrough's official name is actually Middlesbrough 1984 or something) 

 

 

[honeybradger]

11 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

All gone quite after the win????

The win changes nothing.

 

We are still barely avoiding FFP sanctions and are looking at a transfer ban if we get relegated.

 

We have no clear transfer strategy, the players we sign do not suit the system that the ownership hires managers to play. New players quickly fall out of favour if they dont perform due to them not being scouted properly.

 

Even if we manage to avoid relegation this season there needs to be major changes at board level. Success on the pitch should not result in us forgetting the incompetency of the people at the top as it will just come back to bite the club later on.

[Sly]

1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

If a club owner maliciously closed a club down, say out of spite, it's within the league's power to hand out their golden shade elsewhere. 

 

It's not entirely unprecedented. Rangers were effectively a phoenix club and Middlesbrough back in the 80s (I think Middlesbrough's official name is actually Middlesbrough 1984 or something) 

 

 

Scotland is a different FA with a much  smaller pyramid. They also had the original assets as they were secured. 
 

Middlesbrough never actually folded in the 80s, as they were saved by Steve Gibson. So not a Phoenix club in the sense that someone like Bury AFC, or AFC Wimbledon are. 

[LCFCJohn]

18 hours ago, fox in the sox said:

Of course it’s because of the owners - we were nowhere near to a Premier League title and FA Cup before they arrived. I take your point that it is a different figurehead but a lot of people who brought us the success remain.

Talk about rewriting history!

 

Milan Manadric had appointed a certain Nigel Pearson (plus Shakey and Walsh). We had come straight up and got in the play offs. We were on the way back and building.

 

KP then came in and removed Pearson. What followed was dropping back down to midtable, massively overspending (Sven) and setting us back.

 

Then, oh yeah, Pearson and co came back in and sorted the club out once again and basically finished the job they started. So how you can say we were nowhere near the premier league is just wrong. The most credit you can give KP there is Vichai realised he had messed up getting rid of Pearson and brought him back but it was hardly ‘his guy’. He was known to the club.

[Babylon]

32 minutes ago, LCFCJohn said:

Talk about rewriting history!

 

Milan Manadric had appointed a certain Nigel Pearson (plus Shakey and Walsh). We had come straight up and got in the play offs. We were on the way back and building.

 

KP then came in and removed Pearson. What followed was dropping back down to midtable, massively overspending (Sven) and setting us back.

 

Then, oh yeah, Pearson and co came back in and sorted the club out once again and basically finished the job they started. So how you can say we were nowhere near the premier league is just wrong. The most credit you can give KP there is Vichai realised he had messed up getting rid of Pearson and brought him back but it was hardly ‘his guy’. He was known to the club.

Read what he said again. You're missing a very important word. 

[Babylon]

8 hours ago, ozvaldo said:

For me, this protest has to be more about Rudkin and Whelan’s consistently poor form.  And they will be taking the brunt of the protest messages. 

And therein lies the problem: it's not been consistent throughout their time in place. As little as just last season, the club made a great decision in getting Maresca, and made a few cracking signings. Less than 5 years ago we won the FA Cup and were finishing Top 5. 

 

I'd say there is an inconsistency of performance and inconsistency in decision-making 100%. Enough to warrant a change now, but as an owner it's understandable they look at the whole and not forget the good stuff. 

[LCFCJohn]

46 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Read what he said again. You're missing a very important word. 

Yeah that’s fair and my bad 

 

I have seen many people try and claim that KP saved us from the abyss etc so I think that is why I read it as about promotion in the first place which there is a strong argument to say KP set us back by a year or two than if they’d left Pearson in charge originally, let alone them being the reason for it.

 

The rest is harder to quantify. I think the consensus that I also believe is we wouldn’t have won the league without Pearson’s work but if he’d stayed that season, we wouldn’t have won it. Obviously Ranieri added something but was it an inspired choice at the time or one that seemed quite lazy and based on reputation?

 

The second round of success (FA Cup) was built on a mixture of Pearson and title winners and Puel recruitment. The Rodgers appointment was based on a specific plan and strategy I will say that. But it also started the decline in culture at the club. 
 

I think sometimes history is kinder to people and other times less kind. Take Puel for example, he was given no end of abuse at the time but looking back, he was the last manager who really had a clue about recruitment and squad building. Enzo was fairly decent in that sense mind.

 

I think history is less kind to KP even in the Vichai days. Not to say they were bad, but it does seem that there has never really been joined up thinking and strategy led by the club, only by managers such as Pearson and Puel. Of course they have provided funds but I’m struggling beyond that. Even the big sales which have been our main source of funding stem back to those managers in Pearson and Puel.

Edited 28 January 2025 by LCFCJohn

[blueharmie]

If spurs didn't play like the u13s girls last Sunday then this would still have some traction.

 

The club is woefully ran 

[Paninistickers]

1 hour ago, LCFCJohn said:

The Rodgers appointment was based on a specific plan and strategy I will say that

I find it hard to believe that KP and Rudkin drafted a strategy and as a result decided to woo Rodgers. Totally out of the blue. And totally out of character before and since. 

 

The .oat plausible explanation is that. Rodgers had had enough at Celtic and wanted back in the PL. His agents then did some work around the better placed clubs (at that time)  to see if there was interest. 

 

Unless an agent, or Birch, comes knocking on the door, the club haven't a scooby.

[Guest Lako42]

18 hours ago, Clever Fox said:

 

 

What if he shut the Gates and said we don't need the Fans, Which he has every right to do. What do Fans do then.

 

 

Jesus H Christ

[FrankieADZ]

its actually really annoying me now how we havemt even been remotely linked with anyone in this window since Woyo

 

looks like the moron rudkin thinks we'll be ok

[honeybradger]

3 hours ago, Babylon said:

And therein lies the problem: it's not been consistent throughout their time in place. As little as just last season, the club made a great decision in getting Maresca, and made a few cracking signings. Less than 5 years ago we won the FA Cup and were finishing Top 5. 

 

I'd say there is an inconsistency of performance and inconsistency in decision-making 100%. Enough to warrant a change now, but as an owner it's understandable they look at the whole and not forget the good stuff. 

At the time of the FA cup we were massively underperforming off of the pitch, it just took a couple season to fully catch up to us. The relegation wasnt a sudden occurrence of the club being run poorly, it was built towards for many years by the club's mismanagement.

 

For the owners the early indicators of the board not performing have been there for a while, high wage to turnover ratio (indication of improper planning in respect to contracts), players running down contracts (well run clubs regularly evaluate and talk to players on whether they want to leave), inability to sell players (usually means we initially overpaid for them or gave them too high of a wage), players getting frozen out by managers/not fitting the system (Vestergaard, Souttar, Soumare etc means players arent properly scouted with the club's current playstyle in mind).

 

All indicators point towards us sitting alongside the likes of Everton and Man United in terms of how well we are run. 

[CosbehFox]

Enzo ended up a good appointment but the way the whole situation arised. How the transfers were a mixed bag of influences. That's exactly why the club is where it is currently. 

 

 

[fox in the sox]

12 hours ago, ozvaldo said:

It’s that black and white to thousands of us though. 
You see it differently. That’s fine. 
A vast number of us are sick of these (pretty colossal) mistakes. 

We’re doing something about it. 

Of course you are entitled to your view and to protest. I was just pointing out that you are wrong when you call me a ‘happy clapper’ who thinks everything is rosy.

[fox in the sox]

5 hours ago, LCFCJohn said:

Talk about rewriting history!

 

Milan Manadric had appointed a certain Nigel Pearson (plus Shakey and Walsh). We had come straight up and got in the play offs. We were on the way back and building.

 

KP then came in and removed Pearson. What followed was dropping back down to midtable, massively overspending (Sven) and setting us back.

 

Then, oh yeah, Pearson and co came back in and sorted the club out once again and basically finished the job they started. So how you can say we were nowhere near the premier league is just wrong. The most credit you can give KP there is Vichai realised he had messed up getting rid of Pearson and brought him back but it was hardly ‘his guy’. He was known to the club.

I don’t think it is rewriting history. In the period up to 2010 we were nowhere near to winning the top flight as we hadn’t been for most of our history. We also only got close to winning the FA Cup in the 60’s. I agree that Vichai made mistakes early on but it was sorted out. This actually gives me more hope that Top can do the same.

[DezFox]

3 hours ago, blueharmie said:

If spurs didn't play like the u13s girls last Sunday then this would still have some traction.

 

The club is woefully ran 

I really hope it does have some traction still. It changes nothing at all. The club is disgracefully ran and top need wake the Fvck up. Just because our keeper played a blinder it should change literally nothing at all. 

[LCFCJohn]

11 minutes ago, fox in the sox said:

I don’t think it is rewriting history. In the period up to 2010 we were nowhere near to winning the top flight as we hadn’t been for most of our history. We also only got close to winning the FA Cup in the 60’s. I agree that Vichai made mistakes early on but it was sorted out. This actually gives me more hope that Top can do the same.

I did acknowledge my misread of your post in a reply further up. I saw it as not being close to the Premier League, I.e promotion as oppose to what you had actually said which was winning the league. 
 

I do agree we were not close to doing so. I do also think we have to acknowledge that it was not just down to the owners. Pearson and his team built the squad so the biggest credit they get is realising the mistake and swallowing their pride to bring them back. 

[Guppys Love Child]

1 hour ago, honeybradger said:

At the time of the FA cup we were massively underperforming off of the pitch, it just took a couple season to fully catch up to us. The relegation wasnt a sudden occurrence of the club being run poorly, it was built towards for many years by the club's mismanagement.

 

For the owners the early indicators of the board not performing have been there for a while, high wage to turnover ratio (indication of improper planning in respect to contracts), players running down contracts (well run clubs regularly evaluate and talk to players on whether they want to leave), inability to sell players (usually means we initially overpaid for them or gave them too high of a wage), players getting frozen out by managers/not fitting the system (Vestergaard, Souttar, Soumare etc means players arent properly scouted with the club's current playstyle in mind).

 

All indicators point towards us sitting alongside the likes of Everton and Man United in terms of how well we are run. 

I Totally agree..

 

And it's what pundits and fans of other clubs don't see, understand or actually factor in when they brand us as "entitled" fans.

 

And if we are relegated again come seasons end in May,  then it just proves that the mismanagement is still happening, and that the so call "internal review" we heard bugger all from ( and was swept under the carpet, and hidden behind the euphoria of "getting away with it" on a technicality with regards to a points deduction) we learn and implemented a big fat zero from it.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

1 hour ago, honeybradger said:

At the time of the FA cup we were massively underperforming off of the pitch, it just took a couple season to fully catch up to us. The relegation wasnt a sudden occurrence of the club being run poorly, it was built towards for many years by the club's mismanagement.

 

For the owners the early indicators of the board not performing have been there for a while, high wage to turnover ratio (indication of improper planning in respect to contracts), players running down contracts (well run clubs regularly evaluate and talk to players on whether they want to leave), inability to sell players (usually means we initially overpaid for them or gave them too high of a wage), players getting frozen out by managers/not fitting the system (Vestergaard, Souttar, Soumare etc means players arent properly scouted with the club's current playstyle in mind).

 

All indicators point towards us sitting alongside the likes of Everton and Man United in terms of how well we are run. 

To me this view feels like setting a narrative to suit an underlying agenda - it’s very one sided, there’s no balance or credit given where due.

 

It also makes me wonder what you actually want from a new board and/or owner.

 

Take the high wage to turnover ratio you criticise - it’s something I’ve had a concern about for a long time, but there is a stark reality to this in that;

 

• The clubs revenue streams are weak compared to the competition it’s trying to compete with.

 

• One way to increase revenue streams long term would be through greater on pitch performance - but invariably that requires greater spending on transfer fees and player wages.

 

• Average transfer fees and player wages across the Premier League have clearly continued to scale upwards at pace - making it harder for those at lower income levels to compete.

 

• The PSR limit has not moved at all since its inception despite the clear is a club manager outlay - again, making it harder for a club like ours to compete at the top end.

 

So, given you voice this as an area of concern - is it your view the board should be more prudent in the transfer market and pay less in transfer fees and wages to bring the wages to turnover % into a more comfortable range - at the potential cost of on pitch performance? 
 

Are you looking for a more prudent approach - which in turn might mean we can then only ever compete at a top end Championship level / bottom end Premier League level except for the odd season? 
 

What EXACTLY is it you are looking for from new ownership given all the criticisms you’ve voiced here? 
 

Finally, one thing I think you fail to provide credit towards this ownership group for is that the success achieved over their time spanned across two largely different player groups.

 

Of course you had the title winners, where I’d say we lucked out on some unbelievable signings - the likes you get one in tens years - and we had 3 of them in one grouping (Mahrez, Vardy and Kante).

 

But then if you look at the FA Cup winning team and squad - that was a much evolved and younger squad.

 

There’s also signs that the club might be in the process of bringing together another formidable squad grouping - and that if the club sticks together and survives in the Premier League this season, with the right additions it could positive build on that next year.

 

So again, it needs to be asked - if you want the board out and presumably that means them out ASAP.

 

Are you willing to accept the potential negative consequences that a period of upheaval and uncertainty would bring with it, such as a hold on transfer spending and contract renewals until a takeover was formalised? 

 

[Babylon]

5 hours ago, LCFCJohn said:

The rest is harder to quantify. I think the consensus that I also believe is we wouldn’t have won the league without Pearson’s work but if he’d stayed that season, we wouldn’t have won it. Obviously Ranieri added something but was it an inspired choice at the time or one that seemed quite lazy and based on reputation?

It was a miracle, you take out any part of it and it wouldn't have happened IMO. So yes, they had a huge impact on what happened here, but so did Pearson, Walsh, Ranieri, Rennie etc. 

[Clever Fox]

22 hours ago, AKCJ said:

Don't talk shit mate.

 

Top is responsible for ensuring the right people are in the right positions here at Leicester. If Top isn't capable of ensuring that the right people are in the right positions then he has to face the music. 

 

He's not an "owner". He's a custodian. The football club will be here long after he's gone. It's up to fans the scrutinise and to hold these people accountable for their actions.

 

The part in bold is just stupid.

That's the kind of thinking Bradford, Bury, Wimbildon and Rangers had.  Look what happend to them.

[Tommy G]

5 hours ago, LCFCJohn said:

Yeah that’s fair and my bad 

 

I have seen many people try and claim that KP saved us from the abyss etc so I think that is why I read it as about promotion in the first place which there is a strong argument to say KP set us back by a year or two than if they’d left Pearson in charge originally, let alone them being the reason for it.

 

The rest is harder to quantify. I think the consensus that I also believe is we wouldn’t have won the league without Pearson’s work but if he’d stayed that season, we wouldn’t have won it. Obviously Ranieri added something but was it an inspired choice at the time or one that seemed quite lazy and based on reputation?

 

The second round of success (FA Cup) was built on a mixture of Pearson and title winners and Puel recruitment. The Rodgers appointment was based on a specific plan and strategy I will say that. But it also started the decline in culture at the club. 
 

I think sometimes history is kinder to people and other times less kind. Take Puel for example, he was given no end of abuse at the time but looking back, he was the last manager who really had a clue about recruitment and squad building. Enzo was fairly decent in that sense mind.

 

I think history is less kind to KP even in the Vichai days. Not to say they were bad, but it does seem that there has never really been joined up thinking and strategy led by the club, only by managers such as Pearson and Puel. Of course they have provided funds but I’m struggling beyond that. Even the big sales which have been our main source of funding stem back to those managers in Pearson and Puel.

I think it's a bit far fetched to attribute the FA cup win on Pearson at all, he'd been gone 6 years at that point!

 

We all love big Nige but come on