James McCarron

[lukedlcfc22]

Another gobsh*te

[frany104]

****ing useless. It’s beyond belief how many bad decisions we can make.

[jonny_wright]

Incredibly nieve interview, I don’t think management at this club live in the real world - I fear for the long term future of this club with these clowns in charge 

[Chelmofox]

So he's sat in the exec are at home and watched us get smashed by Burton, Oxford and Peterborough. He's sat in the away exec areas and listened to us lose our sh1t when we draw 1-1 to a 10 man Barnsley, or 0-0 against the woeful MK Dons.

 

He listens to the fans sing that Russells Football is sh1te, sideways and backwards everywhere you go. And listening to us ole every meaniningly pass at 1-0 down. He listens to what we sing about Rudkin, and he sees where we are sat in L1, spending more money than any other team could dream of in this division.

 

His esteemed thought process is 'it just needs more time'. 

[Gamble92]

2 minutes ago, Chelmofox said:

So he's sat in the exec are at home and watched us get smashed by Burton, Oxford and Peterborough. He's sat in the away exec areas and listened to us lose our sh1t when we draw 1-1 to a 10 man Barnsley, or 0-0 against the woeful MK Dons.

 

He listens to the fans sing that Russells Football is sh1te, sideways and backwards everywhere you go. And listening to us ole every meaniningly pass at 1-0 down. He listens to what we sing about Rudkin, and he sees where we are sat in L1, spending more money than any other team could dream of in this division.

 

His esteemed thought process is 'it just needs more time'. 

I’ve got absolutely no doubt they’ll be more blame towards the fans for doing all that than there will be for Russell’s tactics 

[lcfc81]

16 hours ago, l444ry said:

Just an under qualified shield for Jon Rudkin.  

This is essentially how all systems work. The people at the top restructure and add additional layers. They then use line management to tell people what to do and blame them if it doesn't work- essentially ridding themselves of accountability. 

Over time they get further and further away from the technical reality of opperations, make poorer and poorer decisions and blame more and more people but themselves. 

They continually distract themselves with short term 'fixes' that makes them fell like they have done something and everything is going to be alright, and then are baffled with why it doesn't! 

They set themselves a life style, try to convince themselves and other people they are entitled to it. They use questionable former glories to convince people they are right, and then they just carry on making things worse and worse! 

This is how toxic organisational cultures develop!!!

Needs someone prepared to get close to the problems, name them for what they are, chase out the personal life style merchants and reset with a team of hard working, hungry and talented people. 

Instead we just do the same thing over and over and are surprised that we just get worse and worse. Baffling!!!

[Headcase]

16 hours ago, AjcW said:

My main disappointment isn’t actually signings. It’s that we haven’t appeared to implement any strength and conditioning changes which is his background and strength. Players still look lazy and knackered after an hour. 
 

No changes at all to that team, either sackings or appointments, no sports science etc brought in yet

The goal where thomas just gave up, and was as strong as an u12's player is bad. What was worse ......was he was blowing out of is A$$ 

[Number 6]

The team who extracted the most value from good counter attacking football has since shunned it completely.

[inckley fox]

1 minute ago, Number 6 said:

The team who extracted the most value from good counter attacking football has since shunned it completely.

And at the moment when the pendulum starts to swing that way again.

 

In my days of supporting Leicester the greater success has generally come from that kind of football. It was the case under O'Neill, Pearson and Ranieri. And in periods when we were, by our own standards of the time, relatively successful (Little, Adams).

 

Yes, we had Maresca, but the aftermath of it was disastrous because we didn't use our season outside the top flight to establish a style of play, and the backbone of a first eleven, that we could take up a division. As great as Enzo was at doing what he was tasked with doing, it was - ironically enough - unsustainable with our resources and poor recruitment. 'Ironically', that is, because we were told that this new-look identity was all about sustainability.

 

Then you had the Rodgers era, on the back of Puel's team-building. At first it worked because it was a 'hybrid' style, as he put it, designed to still get the best out of Vardy and allay concerns that we'd gone too far down the meaningless possession / conservative buil-up play route under Puel. When we won the FA Cup, of course, it wasn't a performance which spoke of our adeptness as an attractive passing side. It was the old blood and thunder which we'd made our name on in the first place. And as the 'hybrid' style gradually gave way to something more 'sustainable', we became entirely unsustainable as a top flight club because we didn't know how to adequately recruit for that style of play. And, lo and behold, come 2022 people started to bemoan us having lost our identity. Rodgers is the best argument the board have in favour of a cultured passing game, but even his reign underlined its flaws, and ended disastrously.

 

And yet they still trot out the same lines about this way of playing being our identity; something we believe in and - most laughably - something which has delivered success. What? Under Maresca in the second tier for one season, as opposed to coming up through the leagues and winning the title? You can't just dream up an identity that you wish to superimpose on a club with a rich history, and a very different kind of identity, and expect it to stick. And then, when it bombs catastrophically, claim it was right all along.

 

These preconceptions were at the heart of much of what went wrong, and smack of a serious disregard for the club they're the custodians of. It reeks of 'My club - which was practically non-existent before I came along - will play how I see fit. That and only that is their tradition.' No owner at any established club could have success with that level of arrogance, ignorance and self-entitlement. The only soul-searching which could ever have rescued the KP ownership was the one where they actually questioned their own longest-held preconceptions, not these reviews which come to the conclusion that the preconceptions must have been right all along; the problems must have lain elsewhere.

 

None of this means, of course, that Leicester should never be a side which enjoys possession-based football, nor that our dalliances with it have been entirely unsuccessful. But it does mean that the old lie that our very extreme interpretation of it is the only way forward, or represents some kind of underlying set of values held across the club, has to be cast aside. Because when you don't take the fans with you, the truth is that you don't really believe in any of those things. The boss might. His boss might. Many of your players might. But it simply won't be, for want of a better word, sustainable when nobody else does. Fans, as pesky as they are, are part of a club, and what works for one set of them won't for another.

 

McCarron is just another example of their confirmation biases and back-slappery failing to address the most obvious of issues, and fixating on an obsession of Top's which he should really have dropped in 2011 when Sven was fired, he lost the chairmanship, and we went on to be massively successful by doing the opposite of what he'd previously wanted us to do. For McCarron to claim that Martin has been successful in two divisions where he was an abject failure, and one where he wasn't a success; for him to say that there's a belief in his style of football at the club, is insulting and wrong. Not as bad as being dumb enough to appoint the guy who fans least wanted at the club in the first place, when all of football was very clear that what Leicester needed was to build bridges - rather than burn the last of them. But still bad.

 

I can bring myself, just about, to get behind even this manager. Okay, I'd have fired him by now, but things may pick up at some stage. Enough to win promotion? I doubt it. Enough for the board to get away without firing a boss they should never have appointed? Maybe. But McCarron's words really do underline that his appointment is yet another symptom of a shocking malaise. If he believes what he's said about Martin, just like if he believes that 90 points will secure automatics (admittedly what the Athletic reported on their targets, rather than what any of them have gone on record as saying) then he is totally unfit to work in the game at any level. And what a surprise that is, at LCFC.

[inckley fox]

4 hours ago, VLC86 said:

Just listening to this. I’ve said it elsewhere, but they 100% did this before a run of Peterborough, Doncaster and Bromley thinking we win easily and it’s absolutely gone to shit immediately. Quite funny really from that point of view, complete chancers.

Surely if they're competent and this was, as you suggest (and I agree), programmed, then you do it before/after the Barnsley game. It buys you three weeks before a meaningful ball is kicked, so if you need a change of tack a month later it doesn't look like you're as daft as, say, having to change your mind days or a week later. Now they're in a position where, given our stated aims, it's totally clear that a change is needed only days after they said it wasn't. It suggests the possibility that they might need to change manager (for the eighth time in four years) hadn't occurred to them.

[shen]

13 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

Yes, we had Maresca, but the aftermath of it was disastrous because we didn't use our season outside the top flight to establish a style of play, and the backbone of a first eleven, that we could take up a division. As great as Enzo was at doing what he was tasked with doing, it was - ironically enough - unsustainable with our resources and poor recruitment. 'Ironically', that is, because we were told that this new-look identity was all about sustainability.

We'll never know. Had he stayed, I think we would have made a much better fist of it than we did. It was clear the players were confident in the system and in their manager. But in general, I agree with what you said. I think the reason our leadership ditched our direct style was the failed season under Ranieri which nearly got us relegated. We simply panicked a bit. Why they've stuck to the belief it's the right way to play considering our successive failures is anyone's guess.

[inckley fox]

59 minutes ago, shen said:

We'll never know. Had he stayed, I think we would have made a much better fist of it than we did. It was clear the players were confident in the system and in their manager. But in general, I agree with what you said. I think the reason our leadership ditched our direct style was the failed season under Ranieri which nearly got us relegated. We simply panicked a bit. Why they've stuck to the belief it's the right way to play considering our successive failures is anyone's guess.

Yes, we probably would have made a better fist of it. But I also think he saw the writing on the wall - funds weren't there to bring in the calibre of player he'd have needed (Faes and Vestergard still wouldn't have been good enough, Pereira as an IFB would have been exposed a lot more, Ndidi wasn't an 8 at EPL-level, and then there was the CF position, in addition to needing to make Fatawu a permanent), points deductions seemed to be on the way, and there was a feeling that the playing style needed some significant tweaks to make it less predictable.

 

I think he knew it was going to be tough to compete. Had we got our recruitment a little better (Coady, Mavididi, Cannon, even Winks weren't up to it), not built the side around two CBs who'd need replacing, and established a bit more variety to our play then we, and he, would have been more optimistic about our chances in summer 2024.

 

I'm probably digressing a bit now! It's kind of relevant...

[adamkhalifa]

This guy is another donkey. All they did was put a face on it, instead of the tail. We are not a Prem team. We live in League one. With conference level management. 

[izzymuzzet]

17 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

Yes, we probably would have made a better fist of it. But I also think he saw the writing on the wall - funds weren't there to bring in the calibre of player he'd have needed (Faes and Vestergard still wouldn't have been good enough, Pereira as an IFB would have been exposed a lot more, Ndidi wasn't an 8 at EPL-level, and then there was the CF position, in addition to needing to make Fatawu a permanent), points deductions seemed to be on the way, and there was a feeling that the playing style needed some significant tweaks to make it less predictable.

 

I think he knew it was going to be tough to compete. Had we got our recruitment a little better (Coady, Mavididi, Cannon, even Winks weren't up to it), not built the side around two CBs who'd need replacing, and established a bit more variety to our play then we, and he, would have been more optimistic about our chances in summer 2024.

 

I'm probably digressing a bit now! It's kind of relevant...

We spent £38m on Skipp, Ayew and Okoli that summer. You can't imagine Maresca would have signed off on those signings. We weren't going to splash £100m+ like Sunderland did when they went up but we did spend money, we just spent it appallingly. 

[HankMarvin]

Jobs for the boys is a lucrative business, that’s why you get the excruciatingly painful Goalkeeper interview, talking about Martin like he is sent from heaven and can do no wrong.
 

[john ridley]

Don't think the ****wits know what they're  doing ,thought he did a good job draining the swamp but he’s  just just filled it with more shit.Like people  have said ,just another yes man .I just hope whenever  we're  sold they clear the ****ing lot of em out ,him ,Glover etc the ****ing lot.

.

[Headcase]

4 hours ago, Chelmofox said:

So he's sat in the exec are at home and watched us get smashed by Burton, Oxford and Peterborough. He's sat in the away exec areas and listened to us lose our sh1t when we draw 1-1 to a 10 man Barnsley, or 0-0 against the woeful MK Dons.

 

He listens to the fans sing that Russells Football is sh1te, sideways and backwards everywhere you go. And listening to us ole every meaniningly pass at 1-0 down. He listens to what we sing about Rudkin, and he sees where we are sat in L1, spending more money than any other team could dream of in this division.

 

His esteemed thought process is 'it just needs more time'. 

Just needs more time  has been the clubs philosophy for years and its cost us every time.

[HankMarvin]

2 minutes ago, Headcase said:

Just needs more time  has been the clubs philosophy for years and its cost us every time.

They probably don’t have a choice, 3 year contract that he had to be convinced about is rumoured to be substantial plus staff.

Given that The substantial payout or contractual severance package counts directly against the club's financial threshold which is dynamic, it would result in transfer embargo and or a points deduction.

 

The question should be how much manoeuvrability have they left themselves when adding these free transfers to drop lower down divisions 

[inckley fox]

1 hour ago, izzymuzzet said:

We spent £38m on Skipp, Ayew and Okoli that summer. You can't imagine Maresca would have signed off on those signings. We weren't going to splash £100m+ like Sunderland did when they went up but we did spend money, we just spent it appallingly. 

It's still quite a modest spend, if you consider we really had to replace two CBs, two 8s and a 9, and pay the Fatawu fee, if we wanted to stand a chance. That was always going to cost more than we had.

 

On top of that, the success of Maresca in the market has often been overstated. Cannon, Coady, even Winks and Mavididi in the long run, were expensive failures. There were some good signings too, but not enough to build a new backbone to the side which could, in turn, have provided the foundations for what we did after promotion.

 

By way of contrast, on the last two occasions that the club has gone up to the PL and stayed up, it's taken the backbone of the side with it (Walsh, Grayson, Parker, Lennon, Izzet and Claridge in 96, and then Schmeichel, Morgan, Mahrez, Drinkwater, Nugent and Vardy in 14). We just gave ourselves too much to do, given our limited resources, upon promotion.

[lcfcbluearmy]

James Mccawrong

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

James McKaren

 

[Foxmeister]

9 hours ago, jonny_wright said:

Incredibly nieve interview, I don’t think management at this club live in the real world - I fear for the long term future of this club with these clowns in charge 

I’m fearing for the very near future of the club. Sort of this Saturday near future.