davieG Posted 31 August 2012 Share Posted 31 August 2012 OS Leicester City have reached a mutual agreement with defender Tom Kennedy for the cancellation of his contract. Tom becomes a free agent following a two-year spell with the Foxes, having joined the Club from Rochdale in the summer of 2010. The 27-year-old full-back made 12 appearances for the first team during his time at King Power Stadium and also spent time on loan with Rochdale and Peterborough United. Everyone at the Club would like to thank Tom for his service during his time in City blue and wish him well with his future career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_star Posted 31 August 2012 Share Posted 31 August 2012 So surprised by this as we don't appear to have cover for Konch, do we really need to cut this badly we have to get rid of someone who can't really be that much a of a drag on our fincances Also, based onn Konch's last 2 performances, he needs dropping & whilst Kennedy may be no match winner, he's never let us down either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryn Posted 31 August 2012 Share Posted 31 August 2012 I find this utterly bewildering given we have no cover for Konchesky. Surely a left back is coming in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Fox Posted 31 August 2012 Share Posted 31 August 2012 Perhaps he headbutted NP wouldn't surprise me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 31 August 2012 Author Share Posted 31 August 2012 I think it must be more a case of him wanting go and clubs not prepared to match his wages, his contract expires in June so presumably we've agreed a compromise figure where he gets a decent proportion of his wages and can then find another club. but it does leave us short at LB unless there's a decent youngster pushing to come through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_star Posted 31 August 2012 Share Posted 31 August 2012 I think it must be more a case of him wanting go and clubs not prepared to match his wages, his contract expires in June so presumably we've agreed a compromise figure where he gets a decent proportion of his wages and can then find another club. but it does leave us short at LB unless there's a decent youngster pushing to come through. Is Taft a LB or LCB... sure he was LB when I watched England Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 31 August 2012 Author Share Posted 31 August 2012 Is Taft a LB or LCB... sure he was LB when I watched England Both I think, he was CB for us in the Westerby Cup a couple of years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raw Dykes Posted 31 August 2012 Share Posted 31 August 2012 De Laet and Schlupp can play LB, but I still think we should bring another defender in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_star Posted 31 August 2012 Share Posted 31 August 2012 Both I think, he was CB for us in the Westerby Cup a couple of years ago. Well if he's not ready now to be a stand-in he never will be, clearing out a 27 year old in Kennedy, who isn't first choice gives Taft the ideal platform to grow. Perhaps it's a good move for all concerned where Kennedy gets a chance to play more football somewhere else & Taft can come into the matchday squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Posted 11 September 2012 Share Posted 11 September 2012 Still has no club, and I still cant work out why we did this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_lcfc_85 Posted 11 September 2012 Share Posted 11 September 2012 Still has no club, and I still cant work out why we did this. We did it cos we dont need him....! Decent player at this level but wasnt even making the bench. We have adequate cover in De Laet and Schlupp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 11 September 2012 Share Posted 11 September 2012 Still has no club, and I still cant work out why we did this. Neither does Heskey, free agents can tout themselves to the highest bidders as much as they want. Puts them in a great position as the permanent window is shut to all but them so people might be more willing to throw a few extra ££'s their way that they wouldn't have in the summer. As to why it's probably been on the cards all summer but only happened now as a) we have defenders coming back to fitness b) we have full backs in Moore, De Laet, Konch and emergency of Schlupp Left Back. Main factor is obviously saving a few quid on a player when we have others who can fill in if needed. Plus obviously the loan window if things got really bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Posted 11 September 2012 Share Posted 11 September 2012 Neither does Heskey, free agents can tout themselves to the highest bidders as much as they want. Puts them in a great position as the permanent window is shut to all but them so people might be more willing to throw a few extra ££'s their way that they wouldn't have in the summer. As to why it's probably been on the cards all summer but only happened now as a) we have defenders coming back to fitness b) we have full backs in Moore, De Laet, Konch and emergency of Schlupp Left Back. Main factor is obviously saving a few quid on a player when we have others who can fill in if needed. Plus obviously the loan window if things got really bad. It still makes no sense. He was very handy cover, and we have left ourselves short at the back as has been proven by Schlupp having to play there in the league already. Sure there are loads of free agents out there, and surely that would be even more reason why someone like Kennedy would be more than happy to get paid while taking the back ups role unless something concrete and more permanent was on the cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_lcfc_85 Posted 11 September 2012 Share Posted 11 September 2012 It still makes no sense. He was very handy cover, and we have left ourselves short at the back as has been proven by Schlupp having to play there in the league already. Sure there are loads of free agents out there, and surely that would be even more reason why someone like Kennedy would be more than happy to get paid while taking the back ups role unless something concrete and more permanent was on the cards. It does make sense, not sure why you think that. The guy will have a better chance getting himself a club now as he's a free agent and he's openly said he doesnt like being a reserve player. We are fine for cover as i keep saying, not sure why everyone thinks we need a ridiculous amount of defenders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indierich06 Posted 11 September 2012 Share Posted 11 September 2012 I'm not too worried because, as people have said, De Laet can fill in at LB and Schlupp if necessary. Although, I would like some direct competition for Konchesky, because his performances haven't been great lately and it will be very easy for complacency to set in now that he knows he's pretty much guarenteed a first team spot week-in, week-out. I'm not a massive fan of his and I'd like to see us bring in someone else for the long term, as he's already 31 and, like I said earlier, he's been quite poor recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Posted 11 September 2012 Share Posted 11 September 2012 It does make sense, not sure why you think that. The guy will have a better chance getting himself a club now as he's a free agent and he's openly said he doesnt like being a reserve player. We are fine for cover as i keep saying, not sure why everyone thinks we need a ridiculous amount of defenders When did he say he does not like being a reserve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basildon Fox Posted 11 September 2012 Share Posted 11 September 2012 It still makes no sense. He was very handy cover, and we have left ourselves short at the back as has been proven by Schlupp having to play there in the league already. Sure there are loads of free agents out there, and surely that would be even more reason why someone like Kennedy would be more than happy to get paid while taking the back ups role unless something concrete and more permanent was on the cards. Perhaps NP sees Schlupp as the better option out of the 2. He was superb when he played there against Blackpool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_lcfc_85 Posted 11 September 2012 Share Posted 11 September 2012 When did he say he does not like being a reserve? In an interview last season after NP gave him a few games. Said he's happy to be back involved at Leicester but long term needs games and appreciates that Paul Konchesky had been excellent so he'll struggle but would see what the summer brought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Posted 11 September 2012 Share Posted 11 September 2012 In an interview last season after NP gave him a few games. Said he's happy to be back involved at Leicester but long term needs games and appreciates that Paul Konchesky had been excellent so he'll struggle but would see what the summer brought You have a source for that? I really dont see any pro footballer quitting a paid job for nothing in the current climate. It still makes no sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxesfan1989 Posted 11 September 2012 Share Posted 11 September 2012 The club hasn't been the same since he left... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 11 September 2012 Share Posted 11 September 2012 It still makes no sense. He was very handy cover, and we have left ourselves short at the back as has been proven by Schlupp having to play there in the league already. Sure there are loads of free agents out there, and surely that would be even more reason why someone like Kennedy would be more than happy to get paid while taking the back ups role unless something concrete and more permanent was on the cards. We were short at the back because we had two CB's out injured and the cover we were supposed to have at full back ended up playing CB. If all players started the season in full fitness it would have Been De Laet at Right back, Konch at left back, Whitbread and Morgan at CB. Pearson has said De Laet can play in any position across the back so he would have been left back cover, with Schlupp as Emergency. With Moore as right rb/cb cover and SSL the same if needed. Shlupp hasn't just been chucked in at left back he has played in that position a number of times for the youth teams. When all players are fit there are enough players to shit around at the back when needed. With Schlupp being the final option, had De Laet not gone out in the warm up the other day Schlupp would probably never have had to play in that position. Nobody knows either whether Kennedy wanted to go either, which could also be a major factor. Along with needing to lower outgoings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Posted 11 September 2012 Share Posted 11 September 2012 The club hasn't been the same since he left... Point being... De Laet RB / CB Moore RB / CB We have two players in the squad who stake a claim for the LB first team spot, Koncheskey and Schlupp. Konchesky gets injured......................... I sill dont understand why we released him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 11 September 2012 Share Posted 11 September 2012 I really dont see any pro footballer quitting a paid job for nothing in the current climate. He hasn't quit, he would have been paid up x percentage of his contract. And knowing very well that people can no longer sign players other than frees he is now in a good position to find another club to milk a few more ££'s. There might be lots of free transfers but how many half decent left backs of a good age are there? There will be a taker for him just as there will be for Heskey, but they will just sit tight for the best club or best ££'s going. Point being... De Laet RB / CB Moore RB / CB We have two players in the squad who stake a claim for the LB first team spot, Koncheskey and Schlupp. Konchesky gets injured......................... I sill dont understand why we released him. De Laet can play in all positions across the back so was said when he signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Posted 11 September 2012 Share Posted 11 September 2012 De Laet can play in all positions across the back so was said when he signed. To clarify that his preferred position is RB, he will play at CB if asked. I have never heard him say, or have seen any evidence of him playing as a left back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raw Dykes Posted 11 September 2012 Share Posted 11 September 2012 To clarify that his preferred position is RB, he will play at CB if asked. I have never heard him say, or have seen any evidence of him playing as a left back. Well he can. I'm pretty sure Wolves wanted to sign him in the summer to play LB for them. In his interview when he signed for us, he said he can play anywhere across the back four, and that his preferred position is RB, but he'd be happy to play CB or LB. I thought Kennedy was pretty good cover, but I reckon Schlupp is being earmarked as deputy LB (he wasn't thrown in at the deep end against Blackpool - LB is a position he is familiar with), and there's also De Laet, and maybe Taft. For all we know, Kennedy could have been 4th or 5th choice left back when he left. Edit: http://www.shropshirestar.com/sport/wolverhampton-wanderers-fc/2012/05/21/wolves-miss-out-on-2m-ritchie-de-laet/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.