Iversen gone to Preston (out of contract)

[Lesta Legend]

7 minutes ago, Dan said:

So a player we didn't give a single minute to for two years, continued to pay wages for, who wasn't happy to just do this, who had offers to go meaning we lost money for... literally nothing. Why are we like this? Not a single party benefitted from this. You don't even know where to start on these clowns these days.

No one is ever is ever held accountable and how we have anyone on here defending the board still, is beyond me. It’s all the little things that go wrong, left to the last minute and all the lost revenue, it all adds up if you constantly fail to sell players when decent money was offered. And we seemingly treat good pros like this - and why it’s all needless. 

[TommyK]

Look at it another way. 

 

Iversen was not allowed to leave because we got a poor offer. Or that there was little point in letting him go because we would have needed to buy another keeper. There could be lots of reasons.

 

Leaders of lcfc have to make decisions for the best of lcfc. Not Iversen. 

 

In this case, I think it was risk management. 

[baldeagle]

1 hour ago, Dan said:

So a player we didn't give a single minute to for two years, continued to pay wages for, who wasn't happy to just do this, who had offers to go meaning we lost money for... literally nothing. Why are we like this? Not a single party benefitted from this. You don't even know where to start on these clowns these days.

Talking of clowns he kicked the ball like he’s got clown boots on 

[studentofthegame]

Feel for the man

Being second choice behind Danny Ward must feel like losing a juggling contest to Captain Hook

 

It's a level of emotional torture not many of us will ever experience 

[SafewayFox]

5 hours ago, TommyK said:

Look at it another way. 

 

Iversen was not allowed to leave because we got a poor offer. Or that there was little point in letting him go because we would have needed to buy another keeper. There could be lots of reasons.

 

Leaders of lcfc have to make decisions for the best of lcfc. Not Iversen. 

 

In this case, I think it was risk management. 

Or look at it from a competency basis.

 

Iversen’s departure would have been 100% profit, there have been countless times that Rudkin has had an unrealistic value of our players…..look at our transfers out, we just don’t shift average players.

 

Iversen was deemed not needed but rather than make whatever profit, we let another player leave for free.

 

Here’s the kicker….all whilst he didn’t make a single appearance for us too (since some of the offers came in).

 

 

Edited 1 July 2025 by SafewayFox

[Dan]

6 hours ago, TommyK said:

Look at it another way. 

 

Iversen was not allowed to leave because we got a poor offer. Or that there was little point in letting him go because we would have needed to buy another keeper. There could be lots of reasons.

 

Leaders of lcfc have to make decisions for the best of lcfc. Not Iversen. 

 

In this case, I think it was risk management. 

I think this is mostly fair but think it falls down on the fact they've failed to manage the risks and that we've not really been in a position to turn our noses up at money for somebody who'll not play a minute.

 

We already had Hermansen, Stolarczyk and god forbid, Ward. We didn't need to keep him as well. It's another error.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

13 hours ago, TommyK said:

Look at it another way. 

 

Iversen was not allowed to leave because we got a poor offer. Or that there was little point in letting him go because we would have needed to buy another keeper. There could be lots of reasons.

 

Leaders of lcfc have to make decisions for the best of lcfc. Not Iversen. 

 

In this case, I think it was risk management. 

But they judged it wrong (yet again) and there will be no consequences for it.

 

What was the risk of letting him go and getting a few and also getting him off the wage bill? The only "risk" would be if both Mads and Jakub got injured and then we wouldn't have had him as second backup, but the last time I can remember two first team keepers injured at the same time was about 15 years ago.

[slymunn]

2 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

But they judged it wrong (yet again) and there will be no consequences for it.

 

What was the risk of letting him go and getting a few and also getting him off the wage bill? The only "risk" would be if both Mads and Jakub got injured and then we wouldn't have had him as second backup, but the last time I can remember two first team keepers injured at the same time was about 15 years ago.

Mads and Stol last season? 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

1 hour ago, slymunn said:

Mads and Stol last season? 

And who played then?

[slymunn]

16 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

And who played then?

I'm too scared to answer that 😕 

[jayfox26]

4 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

But they judged it wrong (yet again) and there will be no consequences for it.

 

What was the risk of letting him go and getting a few and also getting him off the wage bill? The only "risk" would be if both Mads and Jakub got injured and then we wouldn't have had him as second backup, but the last time I can remember two first team keepers injured at the same time was about 15 years ago.

Yep and in the unlikely event that 2 of the 3 keepers are out, we could put a youth keeper on the bench. No team needs 4 keepers! Other than the big sales like Mahrez, Maguire etc, we do have an awful record when it comes to selling average/poor players. We just seem happy to let everyone leave on a free and alot of this comes down to the obscene wages some of them are on! 

[OLD norfox]

https://foxesofleicester.com/recently-released-foxes-player-slams-leicester-city-fc