Martin Out

[AjcW]

1 minute ago, Tuna said:

Walls are closing in already

Sponsorship deal because he's a massive sausage?

[Tuna]

1 minute ago, AjcW said:

Sponsorship deal because he's a massive sausage?

Banger of a post

[Rubbersoul]

Already picturing the scenes of a angry away end at Stockport 

[AjcW]

4 minutes ago, Rubbersoul said:

Already picturing the scenes of a angry away end at Stockport 

Old spikey dykey chuckling away to her mates again?

[Libertine]

18 minutes ago, Tuna said:

Banger of a post

Let'-saveloy-al following on Saturday and see how we do.

[desertfox2]

1 hour ago, Pliskin said:

What I don’t understand is, how can we sign shit like, Ayew, Burns, Cullen Bobby Reid etc, etc…. But then still sign some quality young players like Abdul, Kanga and Bristric (yet to be proven)….

 

But it’s clear there’s a lack of alignment between the recruitment team and some managers…..

 

Its quite clear when a manager signs a player and the recruitment team….. the only manager who’s seemingly controlled transfers and got it right was Enzo, but as you’ve highlighted so many managers have been poor…. Even Rodgers as good as a tactician he is, his personal signings are ****ing abysmal! Puel, was excellent, but his football was abysmal…. 
 

What we need to do is say, “our recruitment team will find the players, you tell us what profile you want”…. Rather than them suggest their mates who are 9 times out of 10 ****ing garbage. 

100%. The problem with allowing managers to have too much say on the recruitment is that if we do well the manager leaves like Enzo and if it goes badly we are stuck with shit like Ayew, Bobby Reid and need to find a new manager anyway like Cooper, either way it's not a good strategy. For a club like us we need to have a really strong recruitment setup and just sign players that suit the club then find a decent manager to coach them. Manager's, as we know better than most rarely stay long regardless of how we do so it's much easier to change 1 person than loads of shit players on ridiculous wages. Letting Rodgers get his mate Congerton in was a prime example of giving way too much power to the manager and it has been downhill since. 

[ClaphamFox]

42 minutes ago, lcfcbluearmy said:

We don't even get the international break in league 1 do we?

We very likely will have the option to postpone our games if we want to. 

[Nalis]

Birthday message for the next home game planned for my mate Russ Ellout

[Claudio Fannieri]

47 minutes ago, AjcW said:

Old spikey dykey chuckling away to her mates again?

Angry scenes at half time when the Foxes find themsleves 3-0 down 

[tom beveridge]

1 hour ago, desertfox2 said:

100%. The problem with allowing managers to have too much say on the recruitment is that if we do well the manager leaves like Enzo and if it goes badly we are stuck with shit like Ayew, Bobby Reid and need to find a new manager anyway like Cooper, either way it's not a good strategy. For a club like us we need to have a really strong recruitment setup and just sign players that suit the club then find a decent manager to coach them. Manager's, as we know better than most rarely stay long regardless of how we do so it's much easier to change 1 person than loads of shit players on ridiculous wages. Letting Rodgers get his mate Congerton in was a prime example of giving way too much power to the manager and it has been downhill since. 

Iam a rangers fan this guy the worst manager in our history is pity ,you guys its only going go 1 way sack him now that my advice 99 percent of rangers fans didn't want him real fans known when a manager not good for there club i would put pressure on your board ASAP i wish you guys a good season

[Headcase]

16 hours ago, desertfox2 said:

Martin is awful and it has gone exactly the way almost everyone thought it would. He should be sacked and hopefully will be soon. He managed to get Rangers to 8th and us looking like we will get relegated if he stays. But he isn't the biggest problem. The biggest problem is who hired him in the first place. Since Rodgers was here and we seemingly handed over the transfer policy to the manager we have been on a continuous downward spiral. Rodgers is a decent coach but he signed Joe Allen as a replacement for Xabi Alonso at Liverpool. He has always been awful at signing players. Then we sign players that Cooper wants, Ayew BDCR etc who he claimed were experienced Premier League players but really were just rejects from other teams we needed to finish above and we got stuck with on huge contracts. Now we have signed players Martin will have wanted no doubt and whoever has to come in and pick up the pieces has to deal with them. We were literally the model that teams like Brentford, Brighton and Bournemouth have emulated. Signing players via dedicated recruitment that are good for the club then find a manager to coach them and we threw it away through the sheer stupidity of our board. Martin should go but we need a change right at the top and the only way that will happen is if Top understands that he's not getting 200m for us now. He would be lucky to get half that. The assets are only worth it if we get back to the Prem and that could take years of heavy losses. 

Brendan rodgers is well known for signing players that were on the books of his "agent" son.  Crazy contracts i wonder why? 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

2 hours ago, Rubbersoul said:

Already picturing the scenes of a angry away end at Stockport 

Will be clapped off as usual.

[VLC86]

3 hours ago, AjcW said:

Sponsorship deal because he's a massive sausage?

 

2 hours ago, Tuna said:

Banger of a post

I’ve definitely seen wurst.

[MonarchFox]

3 hours ago, lcfcbluearmy said:

We don't even get the international break in league 1 do we?

I know, but always seems a time that clubs feel like they let the manager have enough leeway

[ClaphamFox]

It will never happen because our club never communicates in this way, but I would be genuinely fascinated to hear Top, Rudkin or McCarron come out and explain the logic behind appointing Martin. Our problems of recent years have been clear to anybody who has watched us: mental fragility/low confidence, leading to chronic defensive frailty and an unerring tendency for heads to drop the moment anything goes wrong. We’ve been absolutely terrible at preventing other teams from scoring goals against us.

 

Likewise, Russell Martin’s record as a coach is there for anybody to see: in each of his four full seasons in the EFL with MK Dons, Swansea and Southampton, his teams conceded more than 60 goals. When he was sacked by Southampton they’d conceded 36 goals in 16 PL games and Rangers had managed only one clean sheet in seven when they sacked him. In other words: Russell Martin has never shown any ability to coach a defence. Not once.

 

Most people would look at our problems of recent seasons and conclude that we needed a manager with a proven track record of organising a defence, instilling psychological robustness and being pragmatic enough to change things when it’s not working. Yet we appointed Russell Martin, who does not bring any of those things. Just how did our board conclude that he was the man to solve our problems? Are they in possession of some secret knowledge unavailable to us mere mortals? If so, are they willing to share any of it with us?  

[Les-TA-Jon]

23 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

It will never happen because our club never communicates in this way, but I would be genuinely fascinated to hear Top, Rudkin or McCarron come out and explain the logic behind appointing Martin. Our problems of recent years have been clear to anybody who has watched us: mental fragility/low confidence, leading to chronic defensive frailty and an unerring tendency for heads to drop the moment anything goes wrong. We’ve been absolutely terrible at preventing other teams from scoring goals against us.

 

Likewise, Russell Martin’s record as a coach is there for anybody to see: in each of his four full seasons in the EFL with MK Dons, Swansea and Southampton, his teams conceded more than 60 goals. When he was sacked by Southampton they’d conceded 36 goals in 16 PL games and Rangers had managed only one clean sheet in seven when they sacked him. In other words: Russell Martin has never shown any ability to coach a defence. Not once.

 

Most people would look at our problems of recent seasons and conclude that we needed a manager with a proven track record of organising a defence, instilling psychological robustness and being pragmatic enough to change things when it’s not working. Yet we appointed Russell Martin, who does not bring any of those things. Just how did our board conclude that he was the man to solve our problems? Are they in possession of some secret knowledge unavailable to us mere mortals? If so, are they willing to share any of it with us?  

This is the thing for me. I have nothing against Russell Martin per se. I have nothing against possession football per se (indeed we saw it work under Maresca, Rodgers and at countless other clubs).  

 

The problem is, the appointment of Martin, indicated that 1) the club had no interest in addressing our most obvious weakness of the last 4 years and 2) as a deliberate strategic choice, they wanted to continue to implement the style of football which has disastrously resulted in 3 relegations in 4 years. 

Edited 9 September by Les-TA-Jon

[tcrofts]

Chris from Leicester Til I Die was just on talk sport. Only caught the end but when asked if he wants Martin out he was struggling to say no 

[Brizzle Fox]

4 hours ago, Rubbersoul said:

Already picturing the scenes of a angry away end at Stockport 

Does clapping the players off after another embarrassing defeat count as angry?

[Chelmofox]

55 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

It will never happen because our club never communicates in this way, but I would be genuinely fascinated to hear Top, Rudkin or McCarron come out and explain the logic behind appointing Martin. Our problems of recent years have been clear to anybody who has watched us: mental fragility/low confidence, leading to chronic defensive frailty and an unerring tendency for heads to drop the moment anything goes wrong. We’ve been absolutely terrible at preventing other teams from scoring goals against us.

 

Likewise, Russell Martin’s record as a coach is there for anybody to see: in each of his four full seasons in the EFL with MK Dons, Swansea and Southampton, his teams conceded more than 60 goals. When he was sacked by Southampton they’d conceded 36 goals in 16 PL games and Rangers had managed only one clean sheet in seven when they sacked him. In other words: Russell Martin has never shown any ability to coach a defence. Not once.

 

Most people would look at our problems of recent seasons and conclude that we needed a manager with a proven track record of organising a defence, instilling psychological robustness and being pragmatic enough to change things when it’s not working. Yet we appointed Russell Martin, who does not bring any of those things. Just how did our board conclude that he was the man to solve our problems? Are they in possession of some secret knowledge unavailable to us mere mortals? If so, are they willing to share any of it with us?  

The club and Russell have the same fundamental issues:

 

1. They both double down on the problem, rather than find a new solution. The solution to the possession football problem, is to play even more of it. The problem was clearly we were not playing enough possession football, or not dangerously enough out the back.

2. They are both on horrible losing streaks. I presume the club felt that both us and him would resolve this together. He is after all, an ex Premier League manager.

So the logic is simple. The club assumed that Martin was the solution to do (much) more of the same. 

[Pliskin]

1 hour ago, tcrofts said:

Chris from Leicester Til I Die was just on talk sport. Only caught the end but when asked if he wants Martin out he was struggling to say no 

That’s one of the worst football related podcasts I’ve ever listened too……

[pmcla26]

1 hour ago, tcrofts said:

Chris from Leicester Til I Die was just on talk sport. Only caught the end but when asked if he wants Martin out he was struggling to say no 

Did not speak for the general opinion of the fans at all. 
 

Came out with the old Lineker line about he’d take our position now if asked 10 years ago if it meant we’d win the league etc. 

 

Then said only half the fan base have turned on King Power. 
 

Absolute joke that this is the representation of us that the media invite forward to national coverage. 

[TheGoldenGod]

2 hours ago, tcrofts said:

Chris from Leicester Til I Die was just on talk sport. Only caught the end but when asked if he wants Martin out he was struggling to say no 

Its been clipped on their Youtube now...what a terrible guest to get on to represent our fanbase....he's had a mare!

[Foxin_Mad]

I might see if I can knock up a PowerPoint about a pure football philosophy for the modern era. When the job becomes available I will present to Topy and Rudders, pocket a few million  

[Lesterlad]

Other than trollop and Turdkin . Did anyone actually think Martin would be a success here? His football is horrendous

[HankMarvin]

Stockport 3rd for accurate long balls 

2nd for passes in total

 

league position 3rd

 

Leicester 24th for long balls

1st for passing  

 

league position 18th