Leicester City For Sale (Ongoing Thread)

[Unabomber]

1 minute ago, Lillehamring said:

Yes he should and it hasn't helped us that he hasn't.

 

However, I don't believe that the situation we are in is purely because of one element, that it  is purely down to the actions of one individual.  This is my point.  We are not where we are JUST because of Rudkin, the players have not serially underperformed JUST because we moved to seagrave.

Do you think Top is a bad owner and should sell?

[Lillehamring]

18 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

He's also been praised by the club for things that he hadn't anything to do with either. Can't be the buyer and the seller here son, it's insufferable. 

regarding your first comment - so, what? - As i said, i don't want to get into a debate about Rudkin.  i'm only interested in discussing the psychology of fans looking for a scapegoat to ease their frustration.  I simply referenced Rudkin as a comparison to fans attitude towards Seagrave.  Seems like I can't mention the bloke without fans seeing it as an excuse to reignite the scapegoating, which i find rather amusing.

 

your second comment - I've no idea what you mean, sorry.  and i'm too old to be your son, youngfellermelad.

[Lillehamring]

4 minutes ago, Unabomber said:

Do you think Top is a bad owner and should sell?

1. I'm not a business analysist and don't have access to the company accounts so my opinion on the first part is meaningless.

2. Yes, he should sell, probably should have done some time ago. 100%.

[CosbehFox]

7 minutes ago, Unabomber said:

Do you think Top is a bad owner and should sell?

Second half is moot now. 

Edited 27 August by CosbehFox

[The Year Of The Fox]

1 minute ago, Lillehamring said:

regarding your first comment - so, what? - As i said, i don't want to get into a debate about Rudkin.  i'm only interested in discussing the psychology of fans looking for a scapegoat to ease their frustration.  I simply referenced Rudkin as a comparison to fans attitude towards Seagrave.  Seems like I can't mention the bloke without fans seeing it as an excuse to reignite the scapegoating, which i find rather amusing.

 

your second comment - I've no idea what you mean, sorry.  and i'm too old to be your son, youngfellermelad.

Well there’s a link isn’t there?

 

I wonder how much thought went into all his signings compared to the Pearson era? 
 

 

Nowadays we get overpaid and over pampered players on long contracts, and a large portion of that is down to the player and agent seeing the training ground and Rudkin bending over at all costs

[MPH]

3 hours ago, Lillehamring said:

If i spent 500M on a football club the last thing in the world i would do is allow some randomly nominated fan to sit on the board and recommend transfers! How absurd - the amount of money and resources that go into recruitment and you suggest allowing a fan to stroll in and recommend some player that everyone's been talking about on a fan board!

 

Yes, build a bond with the fans, but there are better ways to do it than that.

 

nowhere did I say that would be the only recommendation considered and nowhere did I say that I would  have to make that signing. 
 

over reaction much

[Unabomber]

3 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

Second half is moot now. 

Apologies I was just so frustrated I ignored the semantics 

[CosbehFox]

3 hours ago, Tommy G said:

First pro Rudkin I have seen on the forum, if you can't see how he is massively responsible for the catastrophic decline of the club then you are an ostrich. 

I wouldn't bother - we having these debates with this poster and Babylon four-five years ago about 'we don't know what Rudkin does, so we can't blame him'. 

 

Every bit of hear say I get whether its from different parties and different angles is that the bloke is just bad news, bad at his job and intensely protective of the role he's built himself. The Thai/Asian Business culture suits him so well. 

 

Now all evidence points at Rudkin's terrible performance at his job, its lets not getting into a debate about him. 

[CosbehFox]

1 minute ago, Unabomber said:

Apologies I was just so frustrated I ignored the semantics 

I know what you mean pal. But I think a lot of us City fans are still in a mentality of 'sack Rudkin, sack the board'. That's happening, it's live. The way it's happening though is largely bloodless (jobs losses relatively low) but will take longer to occur. 

 

The harsh reality is that if Martin don't get off to a decent start, this season is going to be awfully middle of the road. 

[Lillehamring]

19 minutes ago, dmayne7 said:

This would be a totally fair comment if the club ever gave us any transparency of who does what. It's been speculation the whole time so who do you think people will blame? The management of the club brought that on themselves.

That's a fair point. And i think that that anonymity and lack of communication (honestly, i do believe the club could have handled this much better)  is part of the reason why he has been latched onto as a scapegoat. Certainly, he has a face that you want to punch, and is a very easy target, and one that doesn't even fight back or defend himself - i don't particularly care for him, if truth be told.

 

However, I think my issue is this whole concept of 'finding someone to blame' - there are so many factors that have contributed to our position both internally within the management, but equally within the playing squad and, controversial as this is, with the fans themselves. but equally, a lot of our problems are due to the system and regulations within the sport that hamstring and restrict the development of clubs like us -

 

as I say, personally, i'm at an age and state of mind where I can emotionally detach myself from game day misery and look at all the elements that have brought us to this point in our history - and, as such, I don't need to latch onto someone to blame - because, quite frankly, there isn't one single element, it's just a perfect storm, in the same way our success was - there's actually a sort of strange ying yang to the whole thing.

 

For what it's worth, I hope our new owners do understand sport management better than KP, but at the same time I do believe that they'll inherit a better club, for all it's problems, than the one KP bought.

[Samilktray]

Maybe the best we could get for 24 million pounds as a premier league club was Oliver Skipp is such a mental statement hahahaha 

[Lillehamring]

14 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Well there’s a link isn’t there?

 

I wonder how much thought went into all his signings compared to the Pearson era? 
 

 

Nowadays we get overpaid and over pampered players on long contracts, and a large portion of that is down to the player and agent seeing the training ground and Rudkin bending over at all costs

I don't know if any of us know enough about the recruitment process to really judge -

 

as i've said earlier, i think our position over the last few years (unsellable players, disinterested performances, PSR sh\t, etc etc) must have made sourcing and actually signing players a horrendous task, I'm sure that the recruitment team have identified a stream of decent suitable players only to be regularly and consistently turned down. 

 

The same can probably be said of managers - do we really think they wanted to employ steve cooper, knowing the risk of fan reaction?  Probably not. 

When things were going well, we were signing great players; the next minute PSR meant that we couldn't afford to buy players (Lookman is a classic example), Rodgers downs tools, the players down tools, we're relegated and suddenly, that same recruitment team are left picking up any old crap they can get....  I certainly don't think seagrave is the reason for how our recruitment has changed since we opened the place.

[Lillehamring]

19 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

nowhere did I say that would be the only recommendation considered and nowhere did I say that I would  have to make that signing. 
 

over reaction much

Nowhere did i say that you said "that would be the ONLY recommendation considered' and nowhere did i say that you said 'I would  have to make that signing'

 

over-defensive much. 

[Pliskin]

14 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

That's a fair point. And i think that that anonymity and lack of communication (honestly, i do believe the club could have handled this much better)  is part of the reason why he has been latched onto as a scapegoat. Certainly, he has a face that you want to punch, and is a very easy target, and one that doesn't even fight back or defend himself - i don't particularly care for him, if truth be told.

 

However, I think my issue is this whole concept of 'finding someone to blame' - there are so many factors that have contributed to our position both internally within the management, but equally within the playing squad and, controversial as this is, with the fans themselves. but equally, a lot of our problems are due to the system and regulations within the sport that hamstring and restrict the development of clubs like us -

 

as I say, personally, i'm at an age and state of mind where I can emotionally detach myself from game day misery and look at all the elements that have brought us to this point in our history - and, as such, I don't need to latch onto someone to blame - because, quite frankly, there isn't one single element, it's just a perfect storm, in the same way our success was - there's actually a sort of strange ying yang to the whole thing.

 

For what it's worth, I hope our new owners do understand sport management better than KP, but at the same time I do believe that they'll inherit a better club, for all it's problems, than the one KP bought.

Our position is collective failings, everyone in the boardroom is equally to blame as the next. 
 

It’s clear to me, our decline accelerated after the loss of Vichai. Could he have arrested it? Possibly, because he would have made the right decisions that wouldn’t have landed us in this mess. Top’s naivety and lack of business nouse has cemented the decline further.
 

I think Rudkin is out of his depth, he’s probably better suited elsewhere in the club, I don’t think he’s got the ruthless aggressive edge you need to be a DOF…

 

I agree new prospective buyers will be getting a club with the blueprint to return to successful ways, but they’ve got to ensure the sale writes off any debts, then they will be inheriting a club in a better position that when KP purchased it. Naturally they will have to, and you’d like to think whoever does buy the club, and actually pays the £200m plus for it, they will be willing to invest in the club, because why would you spend that much on it in our position if you didn’t want to?     

[st albans fox]

4 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

Our position is collective failings, everyone in the boardroom is equally to blame as the next. 
 

It’s clear to me, our decline accelerated after the loss of Vichai. Could he have arrested it? Possibly, because he would have made the right decisions that wouldn’t have landed us in this mess. Top’s naivety and lack of business nouse has cemented the decline further.
 

I think Rudkin is out of his depth, he’s probably better suited elsewhere in the club, I don’t think he’s got the ruthless aggressive edge you need to be a DOF…

 

I agree new prospective buyers will be getting a club with the blueprint to return to successful ways, but they’ve got to ensure the sale writes off any debts, then they will be inheriting a club in a better position that when KP purchased it. Naturally they will have to, and you’d like to think whoever does buy the club, and actually pays the £200m plus for it, they will be willing to invest in the club, because why would you spend that much on it in our position if you didn’t want to?     

I doubt any sale wouldn’t include ongoing debts 

you’re buying a going concern.  (Although it clearly needs attention! ) 

[MPH]

1 hour ago, Lillehamring said:

Nowhere did i say that you said "that would be the ONLY recommendation considered' and nowhere did i say that you said 'I would  have to make that signing'

 

over-defensive much. 

Must be related to top

[Ric Flair]

4 hours ago, Lillehamring said:

And once again the point is completely missed.  I'm not pro-rudkin, i'm pro-common sense.

 

I don't want to get into a debate about rudkin - but it is a fact that, as poor a DoF as he was, he sharees in the responsibilty for our decline, but...

fans were blaming him for things that he literally had nothing to do with.  This is my point about how fans look for simple explanations to explain complex problems.  There were many many reasons for our decline, but because rudkin was bad at his job, fans adopted him as a figure to blame for almost every single problem, regardless of whether it was his remit or not.  So, no, not-pro-rudkin, at all.

 

In the same way they have adopted seagrave as a talisman of performance inadequacies.  It's easier for people to rationalise all the personal, physical & psychological reasons why a player underperforms by churning out the old "segrave is just like a spa/hotel" etc.

Do you have the same bug bears when fans look to single out individuals to give plaudits to when successful? Were you busy on here arguing with folk in the aftermath of us winning the Prem that our owners accolades are inflated? 

[murphy]

2 hours ago, Lillehamring said:

I don't know if any of us know enough about the recruitment process to really judge -

 

as i've said earlier, i think our position over the last few years (unsellable players, disinterested performances, PSR sh\t, etc etc) must have made sourcing and actually signing players a horrendous task, I'm sure that the recruitment team have identified a stream of decent suitable players only to be regularly and consistently turned down. 

 

The same can probably be said of managers - do we really think they wanted to employ steve cooper, knowing the risk of fan reaction?  Probably not. 

When things were going well, we were signing great players; the next minute PSR meant that we couldn't afford to buy players (Lookman is a classic example), Rodgers downs tools, the players down tools, we're relegated and suddenly, that same recruitment team are left picking up any old crap they can get....  I certainly don't think seagrave is the reason for how our recruitment has changed since we opened the place.

I just started writing a looong correction to the myriad errors and assumptions presented here before deciding life's too short.  

 

There's none so blind...

 

[RyCleary]

2 hours ago, Samilktray said:

Maybe the best we could get for 24 million pounds as a premier league club was Oliver Skipp is such a mental statement hahahaha 

This x 100, absolute joker 

[Lillehamring]

55 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Do you have the same bug bears when fans look to single out individuals to give plaudits to when successful? Were you busy on here arguing with folk in the aftermath of us winning the Prem that our owners accolades are inflated? 

I wouldn't call it a 'bug bear' - somebody raised the question about why fans have such a problem with seagrave, I made an observation of what I believed the cause was, and to qualify my point I compared it to the scapegoating that exists.  So it's not fair to say it's a bug bear, just a different way to how i look at things;  i'm really just talking about fan psychology, just relating behaviour that i've witnessed here and on other forums.  - why does that rile you so much? 

 

But to answer (not argue) your first question: I don't have a problem with individuals being either criticised or commended for specific things that individual has done; and if people want to generalise and look for scapegoats, I disagree with that, but that's their prerogative to do so - as i say i'm simply discussing this phenomenon, not telling people what they should or shouldn't think- 

And I'm not arguing with anyone , as i say, i can emotionally detach to discuss the bigger picture.  why suggest that i'm argumentative - i've only responded to people who have made a reasonable point, anyone trying to bait me i've ignored.  Do you think that because someone has a different opinion to you, they're argumentative.

 

And as for your (let's face it, it's a bit juvenile - i think you already know the answer and are just trying to get me 'argue') question about the premier league:  the only thought i had back then was sheer unadulterated joy - personally, i don't seem to remember there being any kind of focus on the owners at that time, some on the recruitment team - deservedly so. But it was all about the players. 

[OriginalRobboFOX]

Lillehamring aka Rudkin???

 

[Scotch]

To be honest, I'm past blaming Rudkin. It's all on Top. If a Dog continuously craps in your garden, do you blame the dog or the owner who let's him do it? Rudkin is incompetent at his rile but has been allowed to carry on doing it and has even been given elevated positions and more power AFTER doing it.... that's on Top. 

Edited 28 August by Scotch
Accidently typed "dof" instead of Dog. Now THAT is a Freudian slip!

[Sol thewall Bamba]

You'd be gutted if your pitch was "I'm pro common sense" and then everyone on the forum disagreed with you.

Edited 28 August by Sol thewall Bamba

[coolhandfox]

How people defend the ownership and Rudders is beyond me.

 

 

 

Edited 28 August by coolhandfox

[Golden Fox]

28 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

You'd be gutted if your pitch was "I'm pro common sense" and then everyone on the forum disagreed with you.

Actually, I've agreed with pretty much every word he has said.

 

He made a sensible post which actually said nothing positive about Rudkin, and suddenly got called "Pro Rudkin".

 

Ths thread is probably a good example of a mob mentality, but it is a lot of the usual suspects seeing the "Pro Rudkin" comment and piling in as they suddenly have a target to get their personal digs in.

 

Similarly, just because you type that everyone on the forum disagrees with him, it doesn't make it true. Just that there seems little point in making balanced posts in this thread at the moment.