When did you first realise we don't have good owners?

[jayfox26]

10 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

The lies about the away ticket collection in Europe and the lies about the cup final coach travel were red flags.

 

Football wise I think the first real sign that the club was in danger because of them was allowing Rodgers to talk them into employing Congerton. That, allied with giving him an insane contract off the back of minor media chatter that he could potentially be a candidate for the Arsenal job, we've never recovered from.

 

There were shite decisions before that of course but all mostly excusable or at least understandable given the circumstances, apart from the various Rudkin blunders like Adrien Silva going unpunished, but these weren't existential threats in the same way.

Agreed, giving Rodgers too much power and allowing his pal Congerton to head up our recruitment was the start of our financial issues and the state of our squad. We've never recovered from this period of time and other than falling lucky last season with Maresca and the promotion, most decisions since in terms of managers and transfers have been awful. Smith wasn't the right appointment after Rodgers, not to mention holding onto Rodgers too long. Maresca turned out to be a good but short appointment and then Cooper and Ruud have been utterly hideous. 

[Gamble92]

Does anyone remember the dispatches programme that went undercover of owners looking to buy clubs? Think one was Birmingham's later owners and Top/Vichai were on there too. 

 

Basically just met in a boardroom and said the strategy is you just buy a club, take out loans against their name, spend that money and then what you own will be worth x amount more in Premier League. 

 

There was zero risk to them and every risk to us with the way we got into the Premier League. We also didn't spend much when we come up or before the title win. Was only when we started to get the big sales we used that money. 

[LCFCJohn]

53 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

Subjective

Without Vichais dodgy dealings we wouldn’t have

1 amassed the squad/foundations that we did.

2 even have been promoted 

Pearson and co were well on the way to getting us up before he was sacked first time to be fair.

[HankMarvin]

7 minutes ago, RedSoxUK said:

That's not true though is it? Pearson's team who predated Vichai amassed the core / foundations. Vichai just gambled the money, he did absolutely nothing to secure the success other than have money available and ride the genuine skill of Pearson and co.

 

That was not an ownership success.. spending more than everyone else and hope you get promoted is dangerous.

Depends how you define the core foundations, they were promoted from a league that we had never played in, and walked it.

As was expected at the time.

Nigel done well to get to the play offs the following year.

 

if you talk about foundations to success, it’s not 4 years later with only Andy King and Dyer left from the squad that made the playoffs.

Foundations to success for me are those players that went on to do the great escape then winning league.

If it was simply down to the Pearson it wouldn’t have taken him 4 attempts.

 

The true test was becoming a success in the championship that needed Vichais money and dodgy sponsorship dealings to push on and get promoted.

In 13/14 the club spent £36m on wages.

£5m more than total income

other clubs were furious that they had to abide by FFP rulings to avoid sanctions whilst Leicester continued to spend and added player like Mahrez during the season.

 

 

[HankMarvin]

2 minutes ago, LCFCJohn said:

Pearson and co were well on the way to getting us up before he was sacked first time to be fair.

Lots of clubs finish 3rd 4th and 5th and 6th and don’t get promoted. Finishing there once and getting to the playoff semi final doesn’t mean you’re on way to promotion.

if it was that easy it wouldn’t have taken a further 3 attempts 

[LCFCJohn]

1 minute ago, HankMarvin said:

Depends how you define the core foundations, they were promoted from a league that we had never played in, and walked it.

As was expected at the time.

Nigel done well to get to the play offs the following year.

 

if you talk about foundations to success, it’s not 4 years later with only Andy King and Dyer left from the squad that made the playoffs.

Foundations to success for me are those players that went on to do the great escape then winning league.

If it was simply down to the Pearson it wouldn’t have taken him 4 attempts.

 

The true test was becoming a success in the championship that needed Vichais money and dodgy sponsorship dealings to push on and get promoted.

In 13/14 the club spent £36m on wages.

£5m more than total income

other clubs were furious that they had to abide by FFP rulings to avoid sanctions whilst Leicester continued to spend and added player like Mahrez during the season.

 

 

Sorry but what took Pearson 4 attempts?

 

He got into the playoffs first season after promotion from League 1. 
 

He joined part way through the season picking up the mess created by Sousa and Sven. Then the Watford playoff season before smashing the league the year after. 
 

Hardly like he had 4 full seasons, let along consecutively without picking up the mess from other managers in between.

[bovril]

51 minutes ago, RedSoxUK said:

That's not true though is it? Pearson's team who predated Vichai amassed the core / foundations. Vichai just gambled the money, he did absolutely nothing to secure the success other than have money available and ride the genuine skill of Pearson and co.

 

That was not an ownership success.. spending more than everyone else and hope you get promoted is dangerous.

Not to diminish what Pearson did from 2008-10 but the only player from that period who was still there during the glory years was King, and he didn't start that many games in the title winning season.

 

So no, the core was not there pre Vichai.

Edited 17 March by bovril

[HankMarvin]

8 minutes ago, LCFCJohn said:

Sorry but what took Pearson 4 attempts?

 

He got into the playoffs first season after promotion from League 1. 
 

He joined part way through the season picking up the mess created by Sousa and Sven. Then the Watford playoff season before smashing the league the year after. 
 

Hardly like he had 4 full seasons, let along consecutively without picking up the mess from other managers in between.

[dannythefox]

1 hour ago, Gamble92 said:

The success didn't happen because of good strategy at ownership level 

That’s rubbish. 

[Kitchandro]

49 minutes ago, bovril said:

Not to diminish what Pearson did from 2008-10 but the only player from that period who was still there during the glory years was King, and he didn't start that many games in the title winning season.

 

So no, the core was not there pre Vichai.

 

58 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

Depends how you define the core foundations, they were promoted from a league that we had never played in, and walked it.

As was expected at the time.

Nigel done well to get to the play offs the following year.

 

if you talk about foundations to success, it’s not 4 years later with only Andy King and Dyer left from the squad that made the playoffs.

Foundations to success for me are those players that went on to do the great escape then winning league.

If it was simply down to the Pearson it wouldn’t have taken him 4 attempts.

 

The true test was becoming a success in the championship that needed Vichais money and dodgy sponsorship dealings to push on and get promoted.

In 13/14 the club spent £36m on wages.

£5m more than total income

other clubs were furious that they had to abide by FFP rulings to avoid sanctions whilst Leicester continued to spend and added player like Mahrez during the season.

 

 

Isn’t the point here though that our success was not based on money?

 

It was down to Pearson and Walsh knowing what players to get. They were bringing in nobodies from Man Utd reserves and the French 2nd division.

 

The wages we were spending were likely a hangover from the Sven days. The point is we were successful because of managers like Pearson and Ranieri. Signing a few cheques doesn’t mean squat if you spend it like Sven, Rodgers and Cooper did. 
 

So if the conversation is about the foundations of our former success - it’s all to do with recruitment strategy and standards. Things we had under Pearson because he recruited well and had standards. Those foundations were not Lloyd Dyer or Steve Howard, they were the ability to consistently recruit the right players for reasonable fees.

[MattFox]

Signing Ryan Bennett as our only incoming transfer in Jan 2020 when we were clear in the top 4 and needed reinforcement to secure it

Edited 17 March by MattFox

[Gamble92]

1 hour ago, HankMarvin said:

Depends how you define the core foundations, they were promoted from a league that we had never played in, and walked it.

As was expected at the time.

Nigel done well to get to the play offs the following year.

 

if you talk about foundations to success, it’s not 4 years later with only Andy King and Dyer left from the squad that made the playoffs.

Foundations to success for me are those players that went on to do the great escape then winning league.

If it was simply down to the Pearson it wouldn’t have taken him 4 attempts.

 

The true test was becoming a success in the championship that needed Vichais money and dodgy sponsorship dealings to push on and get promoted.

In 13/14 the club spent £36m on wages.

£5m more than total income

other clubs were furious that they had to abide by FFP rulings to avoid sanctions whilst Leicester continued to spend and added player like Mahrez during the season.

 

 

Pearson the second time round was the foundations for every bit of success we have now. He's not on about the first time, but to dismiss League One as a walk in the park after Leeds, Sheffield Wednesday and Nottingham Forest spent as long as they did down there is also very wrong on your part.

 

The fact you called it the Owners strategy and are now referring to it as "dodgy sponsorship dealings" too kind of confirms the point of the thread. The money taken out against us was of no risk to them. It was calculated that buying us for £60m or whatever it was was pocket change in comparison to what we could eventually be worth. Which proved to be true. There was no risk to them and every risk to us of going bust if the gamble didn't work. 

 

 

[Pita]

When Top tock over he just does not have a clue. Most definitely does not have the balls to sort the mess out. 

[Gamble92]

40 minutes ago, dannythefox said:

That’s rubbish. 

So they demand Pearson gets sacked before they even come in. Appoint Sousa. Get Sven with us languishing bottom. Spunk an incredible amount irresponsibly to dangerous levels (sounds familiar that) then go and get Pearson back (on recommendation from Alan Birchenall), who in turn manages to install just about every foundation for the success we have. 

 

Can I get an example of where any of the great decisions were made at board level?

[Electric Yetis]

Disliked them ever since they removed the old frieze around the top of the stadium. Never trusted them since. 

 

Having the statue out front of the stadium is a proper sickener too.

[lestuhfox]

2 hours ago, Bob Weasel Fox said:

Not sacking Rodgers after we lost to Red scum in the cup when we were holders and they were a div below - we had been pony for 6 months before that in fairness 

Spot on.

I've got texts on my phone from the October before the Forest cup game saying we are sleepwalking into relegation next season and that is exactly what happened. 

Back to the original question, mine was the parade around the pitch after the Everton game. 

[Wink84]

Maybe not owners at the time, but when I say we was paying 116% of our turnover on players wages. It showed how poorly run we'd become. This is why PSR and FFP was brought in, to stop clubs spending silly and trying to make them become more sustainable. It's a complete gamble which now shows the level of incompetence from Top and how they managed the club. 

[Dan]

I've long felt we were beneficiaries of a lot of luck rather than judgment. I think if you plotted a progress bar under King Power, I'd say it was going downhill for probably 75% of the time where we've made the occasional giant leap a bit unexpectedly.

 

I knew Aiyawatt was a prat when Rodgers didn't go after Brighton away. That's when I knew we were doomed under him. I didn't realise quite the level of how bad he was though. He's no different at all to Chansiri.

[Jon the Hat]

44 minutes ago, Electric Yetis said:

Having the statue out front of the stadium is a proper sickener too.

I don't begrudge the family a statue of their dad near where he died on the other side of the world from their home tbh.

[Free Falling Foxes]

I said on these boards back in 2010 that selling to the Thai's won't end well. Mind you, I also said a couple of years later, that spending a million on a non league player was plain daft.

 

I guess one out if two ain't bad?

[The Horse's Mouth]

Think the narrative that top hasn’t done a good thing is a bit unfair, I think when we didn’t sack rodgers season after the fa cup was it for me. That was the time to rebuild and off load, instead we bought wout faes

[Gamble92]

3 hours ago, HankMarvin said:

Subjective

Without Vichais dodgy dealings we wouldn’t have

1 amassed the squad/foundations that we did.

2 even have been promoted 

In what world are "dodgy dealings" good strategy by the way?

[Electric Yetis]

45 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I don't begrudge the family a statue of their dad near where he died on the other side of the world from their home tbh.

As I've said before, no issue with it in the memorial garden but it doesn't sit right with me where it is.

[LCFCJohn]

7 hours ago, HankMarvin said:

The graphic is incorrect. Where is Sousa in that?

 

The season you have down as 9th, Sven was in charge until November and left us in 12th before Pearson came back. It was 3 and a half seasons and just putting a graphic like that conveniently ignores the rest of the context.

 

He got us promoted first time from League 1, went straight into the play offs and lost on penalties. He was then inexplicably replaced which led to a season and a half of dropping to 10th and 12th when he took back over with loads of money down the drain on the likes of Beckford, Mills and Danns. He returned in 12th and we again see nothing but improvement in league positions, finishing that season in 9th, then 6th and smashing the league in 1st.

 

It can’t be proven but based on how he navigated it when he returned, to go back to my original point, it seems fair to say that him finishing 5th after promotion was on track to have us promoted. It is likely that if he had been left in place, it wouldn’t have taken 2 and a half more season. I reckon he’d have had us up in 2 as that is how many more ‘full’ seasons it took him after coming back and having to unpick the mess he inherited. 
 

It certainly would have happened quicker than if we hadn’t wasted time and resources getting rid of him in the first place.

[The Year Of The Fox]

10 hours ago, Bob Weasel Fox said:

Not sacking Rodgers after we lost to Red scum in the cup when we were holders and they were a div below - we had been pony for 6 months before that in fairness 

6 months before that was Warsaw away 👍🏻