Babylon Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 I thought it had been generally agreed in the past that both players had the option of extending their contract (the club had no choice) and picked up that option, Sven just happened to be the manager in charge when this happened. Generally agreed by whom? Options are generally for an extra year, not 3/4 years at massively increased wages.
inckley fox Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 No it's not. I'm going to spend £20m on the pile of dogshit i can see lying in the street. Is it worth £20m? No. Will you fancy buying it in a years time when it's older and not been smelling regularly because it's just an average pile of dogshit? No. Will you even take it for free? No, I'd have to pay you to take it most likely. What we pay for someone or something does not necessarily mean that that is their value This is where these debates get silly. I don't think Sven spent money wisely, but to liken his signings to 'dogsh*t' and suggest that they were of negative value is ridiculous.They were overpriced and didn't work out, but they were still highly respected players. Clubs like Millwall, Barnsley and Huddersfield would take exception to your dismissal of the likes of Danns, Peltier, Beckford, Mills, Schmeichel, Konchesky, Nugent, Bamba and St Ledger. Those players are still playing in this division (with the exception of one who plays for a top flight side in one of the fastest growing leagues in the world) and some of them remain core members of our own squad. Many sides in this league would love to have the resources to attract them. In fact, in the case of Konchesky, Schmeichel, Danns and Nugent other clubs have spent far more on bringing in those players than we did, while in the case of Beckford he was considered of value by a manager who is now in charge of Manchester United. Nugent and Konchesky were both deemed of value by the English national team. Among those aforementioned players at least four have played in the Premier League. It's important that you can distinguish between a player who doesn't work out for Leicester City and a player who is worthless. Now Gallagher, Wellens, Waghorn, Whitbread, Vardy and Futacs... they may well fit your description rather better. And Pearson can't blame Sven for that lot. As for how you determine a player's value, well if that assessment isn't based on how much people spend on a player (in terms of a fee and wages) then it's hard to know what it should be based on. I agree that these players were in many cases over-priced and over-rated, but you'll struggle to find many clubs in this league that - irrespective of the precise value of those aforementioned Sven-era signings - wouldn't fancy them in their squads.
indierich06 Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 I thought it had been generally agreed in the past that both players had the option of extending their contract (the club had no choice) and picked up that option, Sven just happened to be the manager in charge when this happened. It's the first I've heard of it. So you're saying they had clauses in their contract where they could renew for massive payrises? Sounds extremely unlikely to me.
Babylon Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 but Waghorn, Gallagher, Vardy, Wellens, Futacs and Whitbread were (with the partial exception of Waghorn) very much his own work. And, as someone rightly pointed out, it's going to be tough to get rid of those players. Waghorn he didn't sign, Gallagher and Wellens were signed on promotion from league one and he didn't give them massively increased contracts, they could already be gone had that not happened. He can can only take the blame for having three of them here.
hackneyfox Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 Sure I remember some of the more sensible posters on here mentioning that they had taken up their option of a contract extension. If Sven and Andrew Neville extended their contracts by 4 years I'm horrified.
Babylon Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 Sure I remember some of the more sensible posters on here mentioning that they had taken up their option of a contract extension. If Sven and Andrew Neville extended their contracts by 4 years I'm horrified. First I've heard of it... in fact would be the first I've heard of it in professional football, not just Leicester.
Jon25747 Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 Waghorn he didn't sign, Gallagher and Wellens were signed on promotion from league one and he didn't give them massively increased contracts, they could already be gone had that not happened. He can can only take the blame for having three of them here. And am I right in saying that Whitbread was brought in at short notice when St Ledger got injured? Not saying he is good but I wouldn't use him to represent a 'typical Pearson signing' when he was on a free and a bit of an emergency signing.
Babylon Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 * Pearson has crafted the 3rd youngest squad in the whole league Take it up with foxblogger... point 23 http://foxblogger.wordpress.com/
indierich06 Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 Sure I remember some of the more sensible posters on here mentioning that they had taken up their option of a contract extension. If Sven and Andrew Neville extended their contracts by 4 years I'm horrified. http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/6793635/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/leicester_city/9429909.stm These would certainly suggest that it was the club's decision to tie them down to the new contracts. EDIT: Jesus wept, just found this thread as well. Seems everyone was well happy! http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/topic/71790-wellens-to-sign-new-35-year-contract/
seenitall Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 No - he should be our manager for the rest of eternity
ADK Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 Boss Sven-Goran Eriksson said the deal was "great" news, adding: "Richie is a fantastic player, a true professional. "Technically, he is second-to-none. He is quick has great skill and vision and when he plays well, we play well. "Richie is part of the heartbeat of the team and I believe that there is more to come from him in the future."
indierich06 Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 Boss Sven-Goran Eriksson said the deal was "great" news, adding: "Richie is a fantastic player, a true professional. "Technically, he is second-to-none. He is quick has great skill and vision and when he plays well, we play well. "Richie is part of the heartbeat of the team and I believe that there is more to come from him in the future." The Mercury was funnier: The midfielder, who turns 31 a week today, has been a key player for City this season under Sven-Goran Eriksson, who has referred to him as City's version of Barcelona midfield maestros Iniesta and Xavi. http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richie-Wellens-signs-new-contract-Leicester-City/story-12043673-detail/story.html#ixzz2Tpsy5i1X
AnotherShitSeason Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 EDIT: Jesus wept, just found this thread as well. Seems everyone was well happy! http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/topic/71790-wellens-to-sign-new-35-year-contract/ Shows how deluded most on here are.
inckley fox Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 Waghorn he didn't sign, Gallagher and Wellens were signed on promotion from league one and he didn't give them massively increased contracts, they could already be gone had that not happened. He can can only take the blame for having three of them here. Well he did sign Waghorn, but the signing did not become permanent until after he'd gone, despite Pearson being quoted as saying he'd love to bring him in on a permanent transfer, so I don't think you can entirely absolve him of responsibility, especially when one considers that the signing was made permanent just two months after Pearson left. As for Gallagher and Wellens, he signed them in the first place. Now, according to your argument only the manager that renews the contract has responsibility for a player being at the club. So does Martin O'Neill not have any credit for the positive contributions that Izzet, Elliott, Taggart and Sinclair had after he'd left the club, simply because their contract renewals took place after he'd gone? Does Pearson not deserve credit for bringing Dyer to the club because the renewal took place under a different manager? Besides, the business of contracts - both at the beginning of their City careers and half-way through it - would tend to be a matter of negotiation between board, agent and player. The manager - in this case Pearson - brings in the player; and the manager - in this case Sven - states which contracts he wants renewing, he's not going to throw himself into the financial nitty gritty. That Pearson isn't entirely responsible for Waghorn, Gallagher or Wellens being at the club I'd accept (although he would have signed Waghorn and almost certainly would have wanted to renew Gallagher and Wellens' contracts) but to say he has no responsibility is another example of going to unfeasible lengths to defend him.
Babylon Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 Take it up with foxblogger... point 23 http://foxblogger.wordpress.com/ Only Peterborough played a team younger than this one in the championship... http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/leicester-city-sheffield-wednesday/aufstellung/spielbericht_2226207.html
muzzy1981 Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 Simple answer to original question. Yes their are better alternatives but highly likely they are not interested i.e. RDM Therefore lets get behind Nige. Sooner we ship out the cra# and get some more proven championship quality wining players the better!
Babylon Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 A better alternative is only one that does better, so yes there are always potentially better alternatives... but potentially there are also some disasters waiting to happen.
hackneyfox Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 EDIT: Jesus wept, just found this thread as well. Seems everyone was well happy! http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/topic/71790-wellens-to-sign-new-35-year-contract/ simmo86, lcfcsnow, accessory and that hackney bloke were a bit more astute in questioning the lenghth of the contracts though.
indierich06 Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 simmo86, lcfcsnow, accessory and that hackney bloke were a bit more astute in questioning the lenghth of the contracts though. I think we should have questioned the sanity of the manager who described Richie Wellens as the Championship's answer to Xavi and Iniesta!
inckley fox Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 Take it up with foxblogger... point 23 http://foxblogger.wordpress.com/ I think it's reasonable to take it up with anyone who has used it to back up their arguments again and again without checking to make sure it's correct! Our squad's average age is 24.9 if we include Kane, Keane, Logan and St. Ledger, but exclude Taft, Panayiotou, Hopper, Danns and Beckford. If we include all players currently on our books (excluding Kane, Keane, but including Taft, Danns etc.) then it's precisely 25. If you add a few extra youngsters who have never played and probably never will, and take away Beckford and Danns, then it's 24.2. This is the average age they've used on various sites, such as www.soccerway.com. All in all, our squad is on the young side, but by no means exceptionally so. Like I said, of the last ten teams we've come up against, three of their squads have been younger than ours. If Cardiff were to include their young professionals (their equivalents of Taft etc.) then theirs is actually younger than ours.
Babylon Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 Well he did sign Waghorn, but the signing did not become permanent until after he'd gone, despite Pearson being quoted as saying he'd love to bring him in on a permanent transfer, so I don't think you can entirely absolve him of responsibility, especially when one considers that the signing was made permanent just two months after Pearson left. He did not sign Waghorn no matter how you want to swing it. He has no responsibility for him being here at all, despite him saying he would have liked to, he wasn't given the chance to... and whether he would have spent £3m on him is another story all together. As for Gallagher and Wellens, he signed them in the first place. Now, according to your argument only the manager that renews the contract has responsibility for a player being at the club. So does Martin O'Neill not have any credit for the positive contributions that Izzet, Elliott, Taggart and Sinclair had after he'd left the club, simply because their contract renewals took place after he'd gone? Does Pearson not deserve credit for bringing Dyer to the club because the renewal took place under a different manager? No that's not my argument at all, Pearson signed them there is no denying that. But he signed them when his remit was probably consolidating our position in this league after promotion from league one. The current situation is we are left with players on ridiculous wages and excessively long contracts, thus making it almost impossible to shift them with us losing out massively one way or another. He is not responsible for that situation, he did not hand them these contracts.
inckley fox Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 Only Peterborough played a team younger than this one in the championship... http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/leicester-city-sheffield-wednesday/aufstellung/spielbericht_2226207.html That's not the same as second youngest squad in the division, is it? Two of those players aren't ours and the average age of the bench was over 26. If you only count the Leicester City players (excluding loans) in the squad that day the average age is 24.9 (the Championship average is only a year and a half older than that) while the average age of the eighteen was 24.3. As I keep saying, it's misleading to label us an exceptionally young team. On the young side, yes, but with plenty of experience as well.
Ely fox Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 In the posters view it suggests that you think we should stick with him regardless because you don't want another change, but change can be a positive thing, does not have to be a negative one, and while nobody has a crystal ball how can we criticise a change when we don't know how it will work out?
Babylon Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 As I keep saying, it's misleading to label us an exceptionally young team. Who has?
inckley fox Posted 20 May 2013 Posted 20 May 2013 He did not sign Waghorn no matter how you want to swing it. He has no responsibility for him being here at all, despite him saying he would have liked to, he wasn't given the chance to... and whether he would have spent £3m on him is another story all together. You can keep denying it, but he quite simply did sign him. On loan, yes, but it's perfectly clear that this loan led to his permanent transfer in the August. I've not argued that Pearson made the deal permanent (although he did say that he would like to), but he did bring him to the club in the first place, and that was central to his coming to the club in the end. The fee, obviously, was the board's doing. I don't think managers decide how much a club is willing to spend on players anyway. I'm not trying to hang Pearson out to dry for his part in Waghorn being at the club - and whether you like it or not he did have a part in that - I'm just pointing out that when it comes to the usual difficulties that managers have with players that they haven't signed (e.g. 'will they fit in with the set-up I want to introduce?' etc.), this would not have applied to Waghorn. Neither can he be considered the sort of player who Pearson would have wanted to get rid of upon his return, seeing as he brought him to the club in the first place and wanted to complete the signing which - yes, granted - someone else made in his absence. You surely can't deny this? No that's not my argument at all, Pearson signed them there is no denying that. But he signed them when his remit was probably consolidating our position in this league after promotion from league one. The current situation is we are left with players on ridiculous wages and excessively long contracts, thus making it almost impossible to shift them with us losing out massively one way or another. He is not responsible for that situation, he did not hand them these contracts. Of course I agree with you, the remit was totally different and he is not responsible for the huge contracts that they are on now. My argument is that, once again, these were players who he initially brought to the club and with whom he would have had a functional working relationship. That would have made quite a difference back in November 2011. And, with regard to what you were saying, I'd suggest that Pearson has a greater responsibility for how they serve the club than, say, Danns or Beckford.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.