THE MOST IMPORTANT SIGNING OF THE SUMMER !?

[bald reynard]

The news about appointing John Marshall as Chief Scout is, I firmly believe, the most significant step in this close season. All RK's talk about "not having a major turnaround of players...... not having funds to sign anyone" etc etc seems to go 'out the window'. Why do you sign up a Chief Scout - especially one with such a proven track record at a Premiership club (ie wouldn't be 'cheap' !) and when there are pressing reasons to sign a Coach - when you don't intend to do much dealing in the transfer market ?!

I think Marshall's appointment means we are in for a busyish summer in the transfer market - so watch out and keep up with things !

[Collymore]

The news about appointing John Marshall as Chief Scout is, I firmly believe, the most significant step in this close season. All RK's talk about "not having a major turnaround of players...... not having funds to sign anyone" etc etc seems to go 'out the window'. Why do you sign up a Chief Scout - especially one with such a proven track record at a Premiership club (ie wouldn't be 'cheap' !) and when there are pressing reasons to sign a Coach - when you don't intend to do much dealing in the transfer market ?!

I think Marshall's appointment means we are in for a busyish summer in the transfer market - so watch out and keep up with things !

I think you're looking into things to much. Sit back, relax and let R.Kelly work his magic.

[Guest Gist]

The news about appointing John Marshall as Chief Scout is, I firmly believe, the most significant step in this close season. All RK's talk about "not having a major turnaround of players...... not having funds to sign anyone" etc etc seems to go 'out the window'. Why do you sign up a Chief Scout - especially one with such a proven track record at a Premiership club (ie wouldn't be 'cheap' !) and when there are pressing reasons to sign a Coach - when you don't intend to do much dealing in the transfer market ?!

I think Marshall's appointment means we are in for a busyish summer in the transfer market - so watch out and keep up with things !

I think you've got a good point, but I don't think there will be to many changes to the squad, maybe we need a new scout anyway and has nothing to do with new players coming in.

[Strokes]

The news about appointing John Marshall as Chief Scout is, I firmly believe, the most significant step in this close season. All RK's talk about "not having a major turnaround of players...... not having funds to sign anyone" etc etc seems to go 'out the window'. Why do you sign up a Chief Scout - especially one with such a proven track record at a Premiership club (ie wouldn't be 'cheap' !) and when there are pressing reasons to sign a Coach - when you don't intend to do much dealing in the transfer market ?!

I think Marshall's appointment means we are in for a busyish summer in the transfer market - so watch out and keep up with things !

I wouldn't say we're in for a too busy summer, as i still believe we have to get rid of some dead wood e.g Elvis, De vries, Tiatto, Sylla & Hammill. I don't think we have to get transfer fee's but we do need to reduce the wage bill.

[Thracian]

The news about appointing John Marshall as Chief Scout is, I firmly believe, the most significant step in this close season. All RK's talk about "not having a major turnaround of players...... not having funds to sign anyone" etc etc seems to go 'out the window'. Why do you sign up a Chief Scout - especially one with such a proven track record at a Premiership club (ie wouldn't be 'cheap' !) and when there are pressing reasons to sign a Coach - when you don't intend to do much dealing in the transfer market ?!

I think Marshall's appointment means we are in for a busyish summer in the transfer market - so watch out and keep up with things !

It is one thing being able to spot talent and another thing Leicester City being able to afford it.

As for young players the signs under Rob Kelly, right up to the last day of the season, were that the first team is virtually a closed shop so why would they want to join? I just think too many players at City have their places protected. The situation stank before Kelly and it still stinks now. Good luck to the new bloke though. Hope springs eternal.

[Milky]

if the young players are good enough they will get a chance. No point in just chucking people in willy nilly. chill out winston.

[Thracian]

if the young players are good enough they will get a chance. No point in just chucking people in willy nilly. chill out winston.

That's the point. With the protection racket we seem to have, they won't. In my view we have two more seasons tops to start playing some proper football and making an impact again. If we fail to do this we will be in serious financial trouble.

We made some progress in this direction last year with the arrival of Hume and Fryatt, plus Stearman at the back. Otherwise we simply have insufficent players with attacking capability and if we don't address the problem we will pay a heavy price.

[Manwell Pablo]

Please tell me what I can do to help you with this obession mate. On and on and on and on and on about the same thing. Can you do me a favour and post something over 2 paragraphs long without.

1) mentioning how crap Tiatto and Sylla are.

2) mentioning the youth team and how great they are.

3) mentioning Alan Sheehan, at all.

4) mentioning Levi Porter, at all.

you seem to drag every thread in this forum back into the same arguement.

[bigneville]

The news about appointing John Marshall as Chief Scout is, I firmly believe, the most significant step in this close season. All RK's talk about "not having a major turnaround of players...... not having funds to sign anyone" etc etc seems to go 'out the window'. Why do you sign up a Chief Scout - especially one with such a proven track record at a Premiership club (ie wouldn't be 'cheap' !) and when there are pressing reasons to sign a Coach - when you don't intend to do much dealing in the transfer market ?!

I think Marshall's appointment means we are in for a busyish summer in the transfer market - so watch out and keep up with things !

Maybe he just wants an extra pair of hands to help try unearth some gems. So the pressure is off him to find all the players himself. Rob Kelly is no fool. In him we trust.....

[moseeds]

I think every point raised by Thracian is pertinent - now more so than ever.

West Ham and Wigan have proved the only way to stay up is by playing a level of attacking, goal-getting football. To do this, the mindset in the entire team must be to score on every possible opportunity. At present the team does not have this mindset. The players in the starting 11 have shown their inability to contribute to attacking moves in a satisfactory manner throughout the season (we all know who the culprits are).

However - what we do know is that there are players in our academy who are more than capable of making the grade so to speak. How do we know this? Well, the truth is we do not know for sure. However, we can safely assume that certain players' playing ability in the first team is so low that it would not be difficult for another player to be "equally bad". We also know, that to sustain a generally high level of skill and fitness over the course of a season in ANY LEAGUE whatsoever would mark that player as someone playing BELOW their station (in the majority of cases).

Now, analysing the youth teams, there are a few players who have consistently shone. Their names have been mentioned again and again on these forums. What has not happened is for the first team players who have been under-performing to be replaced by the youth team players to serve as a warning to the senior player and for experience for the youth player. This is a worrying and detrimental trend. By the end of the current season even after the panic was clearly over, there was no effort to prepare for the opening day of the next season. Instead the doors to the first team were closed. In the news we see an underperforming and superfluous player being offered money to sustain his unnecessary services for a longer period. What kind of message is this sending to our academy players? Is the academy therefore required? What kind of message is being sent to our first team players?

At present, competition for places is limited between a fairly small select group. This did not pay dividends for the first half of the season. By the end of the second half of the season (after the initial honeymoon/euphoria was over), the same problems afflicting the team in the first half of the season were again rearing their ugly head.

We must use EVERY resource we have to ensure the team is successful. Knowing you have adequate if not superior reserves - and then not using them is foolish. As a club we are relatively poor. We cannot afford to carry dead weight in the team - players who have lost their hunger and their fight, players who have lost hope and players who have lost their ability.

This is why Thracian is correct and the doubters are wrong.

[Strokes]

I think every point raised by Thracian is pertinent - now more so than ever.

West Ham and Wigan have proved the only way to stay up is by playing a level of attacking, goal-getting football. To do this, the mindset in the entire team must be to score on every possible opportunity. At present the team does not have this mindset. The players in the starting 11 have shown their inability to contribute to attacking moves in a satisfactory manner throughout the season (we all know who the culprits are).

However - what we do know is that there are players in our academy who are more than capable of making the grade so to speak. How do we know this? Well, the truth is we do not know for sure. However, we can safely assume that certain players' playing ability in the first team is so low that it would not be difficult for another player to be "equally bad". We also know, that to sustain a generally high level of skill and fitness over the course of a season in ANY LEAGUE whatsoever would mark that player as someone playing BELOW their station (in the majority of cases).

Now, analysing the youth teams, there are a few players who have consistently shone. Their names have been mentioned again and again on these forums. What has not happened is for the first team players who have been under-performing to be replaced by the youth team players to serve as a warning to the senior player and for experience for the youth player. This is a worrying and detrimental trend. By the end of the current season even after the panic was clearly over, there was no effort to prepare for the opening day of the next season. Instead the doors to the first team were closed. In the news we see an underperforming and superfluous player being offered money to sustain his unnecessary services for a longer period. What kind of message is this sending to our academy players? Is the academy therefore required? What kind of message is being sent to our first team players?

At present, competition for places is limited between a fairly small select group. This did not pay dividends for the first half of the season. By the end of the second half of the season (after the initial honeymoon/euphoria was over), the same problems afflicting the team in the first half of the season were again rearing their ugly head.

We must use EVERY resource we have to ensure the team is successful. Knowing you have adequate if not superior reserves - and then not using them is foolish. As a club we are relatively poor. We cannot afford to carry dead weight in the team - players who have lost their hunger and their fight, players who have lost hope and players who have lost their ability.

This is why Thracian is correct and the doubters are wrong.

I agree 100% with the above and most certainly could not have put it better myself

[lookwhaticando]

I think it's all a bit early to make wild predictions about next seasons:

a) first team/starting 11

b) finishing position

Rob Kelly was thrown into the midsts of a relegation battle in January - he didn't have a whole lot of time to take action. And he could hardly afford to be bold in his selections - when you're staring relegation in the face, it's just not the right time to throw a bunch of youngsters in at the deep end - no matter how many games they've played.

Next season, Rob will be the one in charge when the pre-season comes around, so he will be better placed to give some proper thought to his team for next season. Until we see the line-ups for the pre-season friendlies, we can't say for sure who will and will not be the likely starting 11.

I personally don't think he will just blindly stick with the starting 11 he's been using once he's had a full pre-season to assess all the players.

[moseeds]

when you're staring relegation in the face, it's just not the right time to throw a bunch of youngsters in at the deep end - no matter how many games they've played.

On this forum, this assumption that wanting youth team players in the first team requires wholesale dismantling of the first team is repeatedly asserted.

We all know this is not the case. So why believe it is? NOBODY is asking for wholesale removal of the first team in favour of younger legs. EVERYBODY agrees certain players in the first team can improve or can be improved upon. The solution in my opinion and in many others is to TEST youth team players for an adequate period. I wholeheartedly agree that "rocking the boat" during the relegation battle phase may have been disastrous. However, since then, the opportunity should and could have been seized.

Opportunities where your team has nothing to play for, and without receiving disapproval from the fans only come along ONCE in a season - the end. This whole argument regarding youth players in the first team will be recycled next season once again because City will have everything to play for - until the end (unless there is a play-off run in which means there will be no chance of respite). By which time several promising members of the youth team may have moved to pastures new in disgust.

We are not in a position to buy our way out of trouble, nor are we in a position to offer generous contracts to players who have been released and in demand (as decent players always are). Therefore there is only one realistic and viable alternative - the youth team.

[Hullfox]

However - what we do know is that there are players in our academy who are more than capable of making the grade so to speak. How do we know this? Well, the truth is we do not know for sure.

That sentence encouraged me to read no further.

[Fez of Mahrez]

That sentence encouraged me to read no further.

I hadn't spotted that. What a brilliant couple of sentences.

[Thracian]

I agree 100% with the above and most certainly could not have put it better myself

Thanks to you and to Moseeds. What you say is appreciated. There is so much resistance to change at Leicester that indifference seems to have become the norm and calling for a more inspiring approach is like banging your head on a rock.

And yet the problems are plain to see. We need more people in the team who can score goals, more who can create goals, better free kicks, better corners, the genuiine competition for places already mentioned and an altogether better balanced team which is devoid of obvious weaknesses.

Football is not just about energy and determination, it is also about skill and imagination. We don't have those four things in the right balance and never will have while so many indifferent players enjoy such an endlessly charmed life.

People may deliberately ridicule, misinterpret or selectively interpret what is written but there will be no denying the truth in the end. If we don't replace our weak players with better ones there are dark days ahead.

As said, no-one has remotely called for wholesale use of Reserve/Academy players either during the relegation battle or anytime since. But Moseeds is right in that we don't know for sure whether Porter or Dodds might be better than or an option to Maybury, Williams, Tiatto or Hughes because we didn't do anything to find out when we had the chance.

Nor did we try O'Grady in a 4-3-3 or do anything which might improve our options for the future. I can find no excuse for wasting all those opportunities apart from the "favoured few" effect I've mentioned.

[moseeds]

However - what we do know is that there are players in our academy who are more than capable of making the grade so to speak. How do we know this? Well, the truth is we do not know for sure.

That sentence encouraged me to read no further.

This is the whole problem. It is the "chicken and egg" situation. I have plainly stated the argument from both sides - that being:

1) - We do not know if the youth players can cope so why risk it.

2) - The youth team players cannot possibly play any worse than the player they will replace.

The only logical solution is therefore to break this cycle by TESTING the youth player, towards the latter part of the season. Jason Hullcox - what I have said regarding "we cannot be sure" is the plain truth. It is what everyone is thinking. However, using that statement to prove why no youngsters should be introduced in lieu of underperforming first-teamers is definitely a flawed idea.

In the past season there was ample opportunity to reward members of the youth team and punish certain players from the first team. It never happened. There was opportunity towards the end of the season. It never happened. What Thracian and others are asking is if not now then when?

[Jonbluefox9]

Thanks to you and to Moseeds. What you say is appreciated. There is so much resistance to change at Leicester that indifference seems to have become the norm and calling for a more inspiring approach is like banging your head on a rock.

And yet the problems are plain to see. We need more people in the team who can score goals, more who can create goals, better free kicks, better corners, the genuiine competition for places already mentioned and an altogether better balanced team which is devoid of obvious weaknesses.

Football is not just about energy and determination, it is also about skill and imagination. We don't have those four things in the right balance and never will have while so many indifferent players enjoy such an endlessly charmed life.

People may deliberately ridicule, misinterpret or selectively interpret what is written but there will be no denying the truth in the end. If we don't replace our weak players with better ones there are dark days ahead.

As said, no-one has remotely called for wholesale use of Reserve/Academy players either during the relegation battle or anytime since. But Moseeds is right in that we don't know for sure whether Porter or Dodds might be better than or an option to Maybury, Williams, Tiatto or Hughes because we didn't do anything to find out when we had the chance.

Nor did we try O'Grady in a 4-3-3 or do anything which might improve our options for the future. I can find no excuse for wasting all those opportunities apart from the "favoured few" effect I've mentioned.

In a season where we chopped and changed so often that nobody had a chance to form a solid partnership with another City player, and that showed in the way we played, maybe Rob thought it would be an idea to actually stick with these partnerships that had worked well, for more than five games. It's alright saying we should've tried this player and that player but Rob wanted to end the season in good form to carry on from at the start of next season. He wanted to win every game and he felt the best way of doing this would be to stick with the same players that had hit a bit of form. Maybe looking back he would say they actually could've done with being rested by the time we played Southampton away because they had very little left in the tank but I think his intention was right. Every game was another game that players like Hume and Fryatt were building up a better understanding that will help them going into next season next season.

[moseeds]

Oh btw, ta thracian and fox4eva!

[Strokes]

In a season where we chopped and changed so often that nobody had a chance to form a solid partnership with another City player, and that showed in the way we played, maybe Rob thought it would be an idea to actually stick with these partnerships that had worked well, for more than five games. It's alright saying we should've tried this player and that player but Rob wanted to end the season in good form to carry on from at the start of next season. He wanted to win every game and he felt the best way of doing this would be to stick with the same players that had hit a bit of form. Maybe looking back he would say they actually could've done with being rested by the time we played Southampton away because they had very little left in the tank but I think his intention was right. Every game was another game that players like Hume and Fryatt were building up a better understanding that will help them going into next season next season.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing john and i don't wish to critisise Kelly too much as he has been fantastic in doing the job we all asked of him (but some people think the bloke is the next messiah and hasn't/won't make any errors), however i think the subject keeps getting brought up due to the ridicule received and when it is not an outrageous idea but a fair and quite benifical one in many ways, it can be quite frustating. I think we should have given some of the academy players a chance to shine in the final few games but now that we haven't the question that still needs answering is, will they cope when needed? we could have known the answer or at least had an idea and therefore prepared for the next season in a more informed manner.

[moseeds]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing john and i don't wish to critisise Kelly too much as he has been fantastic in doing the job we all asked of him (but some people think the bloke is the next messiah and hasn't/won't make any errors), however i think the subject keeps getting brought up due to the ridicule received and when it is not an outrageous idea but a fair and quite benifical one in many ways, it can be quite frustating. I think we should have given some of the academy players a chance to shine in the final few games but now that we haven't the question that still needs answering is, will they cope when needed? we could have known the answer or at least had an idea and therefore prepared for the next season in a more informed manner.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I like many others do want to see local lads/youth play, we as fans are less harsh on them too and chances are any lack in skill will be made up for with bags of effort and commitment.

[Thracian]

In a season where we chopped and changed so often that nobody had a chance to form a solid partnership with another City player, and that showed in the way we played, maybe Rob thought it would be an idea to actually stick with these partnerships that had worked well, for more than five games. It's alright saying we should've tried this player and that player but Rob wanted to end the season in good form to carry on from at the start of next season. He wanted to win every game and he felt the best way of doing this would be to stick with the same players that had hit a bit of form. Maybe looking back he would say they actually could've done with being rested by the time we played Southampton away because they had very little left in the tank but I think his intention was right. Every game was another game that players like Hume and Fryatt were building up a better understanding that will help them going into next season next season.

You're right about there being little left in the tank, and at least two of the players (Stearman and Hughes) were carrying injuries.

[Magic No. 8]

The news about appointing John Marshall as Chief Scout is, I firmly believe, the most significant step in this close season. All RK's talk about "not having a major turnaround of players...... not having funds to sign anyone" etc etc seems to go 'out the window'. Why do you sign up a Chief Scout - especially one with such a proven track record at a Premiership club (ie wouldn't be 'cheap' !) and when there are pressing reasons to sign a Coach - when you don't intend to do much dealing in the transfer market ?!

I think Marshall's appointment means we are in for a busyish summer in the transfer market - so watch out and keep up with things !

Chill.

He has appointed a chief scout of proven quality. That is good news surely. Someone who can share the burden of going to games and looking at talent (talent that we might be able to bring in cheaply given that we don't have money to throw around). We can't afford massive transfer fees so surely someone who can spot talent is a blessing rather than a curse.

It also gives Rob and Mike more time to focus on their strengths, i.e. coaching.

Don't worry mate. I know for a fact that the club are anxious to keep hold of their better players. Obviously it may nt be possible if a stupidly good offer comes in, but aside from that I think we will be alright.

I don't think there is anything sinister.

[Foxes_Trust]

It is one thing being able to spot talent and another thing Leicester City being able to afford it.

You give the scout a clear brief as to which shop he is to look in. He won't be monitoring Harrods windows, if we can only buy at Just99p, focused scouting should pay dividends

[Hullfox]

I think every point raised by Thracian is pertinent - now more so than ever.

West Ham and Wigan have proved the only way to stay up is by playing a level of attacking, goal-getting football. To do this, the mindset in the entire team must be to score on every possible opportunity. At present the team does not have this mindset. The players in the starting 11 have shown their inability to contribute to attacking moves in a satisfactory manner throughout the season (we all know who the culprits are).

Moseeds, I'm playing Devils Advocate here - Everton were struggling very badly at the beginning of the season and survived by scoring less than 1 goal a game (34 in total). The only way to stay up therefore is not as you say. Your way may be better, but it is not the only way.

However - what we do know is that there are players in our academy who are more than capable of making the grade so to speak. How do we know this? Well, the truth is we do not know for sure. However, we can safely assume that certain players' playing ability in the first team is so low that it would not be difficult for another player to be "equally bad".

Disagree (i think). If I read you right you are saying that if someone is playing badly, we can assume that a replacement will not play as bad. Bit like Trevor Benjamin and Elvis then who were equally as shit for differing reasons.

We also know, that to sustain a generally high level of skill and fitness over the course of a season in ANY LEAGUE whatsoever would mark that player as someone playing BELOW their station (in the majority of cases).

Struggling here. Are you saying that if someone stays fit all season, they aren't either playing to their full ability or trying hard enough? If so, I reckon Frank Lampard might have a differing view. Exactly how many of our players avoided injury all season?

Now, analysing the youth teams, there are a few players who have consistently shone. Their names have been mentioned again and again on these forums. What has not happened is for the first team players who have been under-performing to be replaced by the youth team players to serve as a warning to the senior player and for experience for the youth player.

Might it just be that they are not ready for first team action and that Craig Levein and Rob Kelly actually saw that after working with them and seeing them more regularly than probably anybody on the boards? My best friend has a son who has just been voted Best Young Player within a Championship club, a bit like Louis Dodds. He tells me he has seen his son at academy level and reserve level and there is a massive gulf when he comes up against first teamers in the opposition. He would love his son to play first team football but says he needs to learn more. The place to learn is not necessarily the first team at the end of the season.

This is a worrying and detrimental trend. By the end of the current season even after the panic was clearly over, there was no effort to prepare for the opening day of the next season. Instead the doors to the first team were closed. In the news we see an underperforming and superfluous player being offered money to sustain his unnecessary services for a longer period. What kind of message is this sending to our academy players? Is the academy therefore required? What kind of message is being sent to our first team players?

The message is surely not one that is given in one or two team selections. These guys are constantly appraised and talked to. Their career path does not swing on whether they are picked at the end of the season. They know what is expected of them at all times. Look at the string of prodigal sons that have been touted in the past and who have come to absolutley nothing. Petrescu, Stephenson, Dudfield, Dawson etc etc etc. Few prove themselves elsewhere either.

At present, competition for places is limited between a fairly small select group. This did not pay dividends for the first half of the season. By the end of the second half of the season (after the initial honeymoon/euphoria was over), the same problems afflicting the team in the first half of the season were again rearing their ugly head.

Again I disagree. I think that when the job was done the foot did go off the pedal a touch but what a job it was. Third from bottom and staring relegation in the face. The performances by the same squad changed. They proved that they were worthy of their places.

We must use EVERY resource we have to ensure the team is successful. Knowing you have adequate if not superior reserves - and then not using them is foolish. As a club we are relatively poor. We cannot afford to carry dead weight in the team - players who have lost their hunger and their fight, players who have lost hope and players who have lost their ability.

What? change the team how often? How many changes should we make week in week out to ensure that EVERY resource is used? Are you including Tiatto in that despite your dislike for him?

This is why Thracian is correct and the doubters are wrong.

Okay