Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
OakFox12

Danns back in contention?

By OakFox12, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Col city fan

Col city fan

Posted
Posted

Danns is capable no doubt based on his previous.My real concern is giving away freekicks with the over excited tackles and we aren't exactly great at defending those set situations.

If he gets a chance and gets on the pace right from the off bit more discipline in the tackle could keep a place in a winning side

Good post. I agree..

:thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DanTheFox07

DanTheFox07

Posted
Posted

does anyone remember Danns against chelsea, he was awesome that game, we missed him in certain games, andy king goes missing in big games sometimes, if he play's then we have more bite in midfield and then perhap's free's up more attacking player's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GingerrrFox

GingerrrFox

Posted
Posted

How did you come to the conclusion that we complied with FFP with Beckford in the squad when the club say we didn't?

If you're going on what Fox Toffee tweeted, I think he meant we were within it taking the transfer into account which is exactly how I read it to be as well

I've been told that we were ok with FFP before we sold Beckford but we couldn't buy anymore players until we got rid of some. Beckford was the highest earner still at the club so on reasonable wages you could get 2 maybe 3 players to be an equivalent level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sharpe's Fox

Sharpe's Fox

Posted
Posted

If he were on sensible wages I would welcome him trying to work himself into the side, but he's not. He needs to go because:

 

a) his performances don't merit his wages

b) his wages cause damage to the stability of the club

c) his wage may cause friction in the dressing room

 

and on a non-serious note:

 

d) he is an irritating little sh*te

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dayday

dayday

Posted
Posted

does anyone remember Danns against chelsea, he was awesome that game, we missed him in certain games, andy king goes missing in big games sometimes, if he play's then we have more bite in midfield and then perhap's free's up more attacking player's.

Andy King goes missing in most games

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Col city fan

Col city fan

Posted
Posted

Andy King goes missing in most games

We've all seen Andy King now for quite a few seasons.

We know two things about him. Firstly, he's a naturally talented footballer. He's got vision on the ball, runs well off the ball and Kingfox is right... Defensively he's come on well.

Secondly, he DOES go missing. Look at the stats and the facts. Last season, we lost more games away from home than we'd ever done under Pearson and more, I think? than we did under Sven.

If we do not sort out being out muscled and bullied away from home, we won't improve.

I maintain... King is good in some games, not so good in others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dayday

dayday

Posted
Posted

I disagree that he has improved defensively, And that is backed up with your away stats... It's alright tracking a player but if you cannot tackle for toffee or get brushed a side to easily your not much good to the side.

To be honest I struggle to see why he gets picked, his strengths are the ability to make space and make runs but other than that I am lost to what he brings to the side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
XLM

XLM

Posted
Posted

I think he's worth having to bring on when one of our midfield looks tired. He might be a bit of a headless chicken, but he'll add some much needed energy to the midfield in the final 20 mins of the game. If his wage is as high as they say it is though, i'm sure we could find a cheaper alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kingfox

kingfox

Posted
Posted

We've all seen Andy King now for quite a few seasons.

We know two things about him. Firstly, he's a naturally talented footballer. He's got vision on the ball, runs well off the ball and Kingfox is right... Defensively he's come on well.

Secondly, he DOES go missing. Look at the stats and the facts. Last season, we lost more games away from home than we'd ever done under Pearson and more, I think? than we did under Sven.

If we do not sort out being out muscled and bullied away from home, we won't improve.

I maintain... King is good in some games, not so good in others.

 

Drinkwater was a major part of being weak in away games.

 

So much that people, probably even you questioned yourself. 

 

King did very well in quite a few away games last season, I didn't get the chance to follow the team away from home, but of the away matches I saw online & tv, he was excellent against Blackburn & Brighton, was one of our better players in our away leg against Watford. 

 

I don't think he is that lightweight anymore, Drinkwater is the lightweight one, and I can remember quite a few times especially when his form dipped, fans who went to the away games gave him bad reviews & said the same old things people usually say about Drinkwater, he slowed the game down, didn't get stuck in and was very lightweight. You've even questioned this yourself, by wanting a defensive midfielder. 

 

I really rate Andy King, and I honestly can see when people were saying well his lightweight & he goes missing, last season I think we saw a different side to Andy King, a much more physical side to Andy, a more hard working side. Of the games he played with James, the understanding is there, they work well together and it would be stupid to break that partnership unless one of them goes drastically off form. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ozwin

Ozwin

Posted
Posted

He had one game where his headless chicken running about made him look decent (Derby away a few seasons back) and that's it. I don't think he's positionally good enough, it's all well and good running about jumping into tackles but it leaves things very open in the middle and we've paid for it when he's played several times now. If he can be a bit more strict and command the midfield instead of aimlessly running about he could be decent, I think he'd be better in an attacking role instead of a box to box type.

 

He's probably a right laugh in the changing rooms and that though so might be worth keeping around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foxes_Trust

Foxes_Trust

Posted
Posted

Beckford's gone and the fee to Everton has basically been paid off now. We are apparently just within the FFP regulations so it's conceivable that if Nigel doesn't think he can get a midfielder better than Danns or as good as him into the squad that he keeps him because we can now afford to. 

 

So on your calculations we have offloaded one player and as the owners can only put in £5m this season, when they put in £15.7m up to 30th Nov last season... it has saved us £10m ?

 

How exactly do you work out we are within FFP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kingfox

kingfox

Posted
Posted

He's probably a right laugh in the changing rooms and that though so might be worth keeping around.

 

But wouldn't that be pretty much a waste, don't want to keep a player just because they are good around the changing room.

 

Pointless him being here if that was the case, and we would be wasting money on him, those wages could go to another player who deserves it and will get played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dayday

dayday

Posted
Posted

So on your calculations we have offloaded one player and as the owners can only put in £5m this season, when they put in £15.7m up to 30th Nov last season... it has saved us £10m ?

How exactly do you work out we are within FFP?

All this FFP is confusing,as you have all the answers what realistically do we have to do to get in our budget?

Rob Tanner is saying we can recruit now Beckford has departed, yet your figures show we need to off load quite a few before we can even think about signing anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leicester_Numan

Leicester_Numan

Posted
Posted

I've been told that we were ok with FFP before we sold Beckford but we couldn't buy anymore players until we got rid of some. Beckford was the highest earner still at the club so on reasonable wages you could get 2 maybe 3 players to be an equivalent level.

We were over the 60% of income on wages restriction, that's why players have to go to bring players in.

The DOF announcement basically said it all. The focus of that announcement was moving players on in order to comply with FFP, meaning we weren't complying at the time. If we had been, the focus would have been on moving players on in order to free up wages so we can bring players in. Basically the same job being done but you see the difference in the 2.

Now, it's only a few peoples opinion, mine included, and there is no evidence as yet, but some of us think getting rid of Beckford is enough to comply with FFP on wages but not enough to bring players in without going back over. We could be completely wrong and we could still not be in compliance

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dannythefox

dannythefox

Posted
Posted

The players that get loaned out are the ones Pearson doesn't want to keep! Apart from the young ones who need to get some experience! So no he won't be back in contention which is a shame because I think he can do a job at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
_Fatboyslow_

_Fatboyslow_

Posted
Posted

We were over the 60% of income on wages restriction, that's why players have to go to bring players in.

The DOF announcement basically said it all. The focus of that announcement was moving players on in order to comply with FFP, meaning we weren't complying at the time. If we had been, the focus would have been on moving players on in order to free up wages so we can bring players in. Basically the same job being done but you see the difference in the 2.

Now, it's only a few peoples opinion, mine included, and there is no evidence as yet, but some of us think getting rid of Beckford is enough to comply with FFP on wages but not enough to bring players in without going back over. We could be completely wrong and we could still not be in compliance

Fair point well made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bert

Bert

Posted
Posted

When we had our bad run last season we badly missed Danns just for his experience alone,he is know way as bad as some make out, he can change game so I don't understand why he gets all this hate.

It's the in thing to do. Hate on a player for no particular reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...