Dan LCFC Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 bnets point was that we're 2nd biggest with only 1 team so we're even further underachieving. Again, totally wrong. So you're saying we should be better than sides like West Ham? Spurs? Everton? I've never once claimed that Leicester City as a club are achieving what they should be capable of. I just find it absolutely absurd that so much of the flack for this under-achievement is thrown at the one man who's got us nearest to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 bnets point was that we're 2nd biggest with only 1 team so we're even further underachieving. As as been said though the City argument is nonsense. Leicester isn't an exclusive football town, Rugby is huge here and we have the best side in the country for that, if you go into East Leicester Cricket will be the top sport with the large Asian Pop. Bristol is a huge city but have two low ranking football teams because again, football isn't the top sport in the City. The idea of "Big City = should have good football" ignores all the cultural factors of a city, Liverpool only produce footballers and two top tier teams as it's the only sport they play, they have never produced a Rugby or Cricket player of International standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corky Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 Unbelievable isn't it, the last 10 years of underachieving don't really count because we wern't actually building for 7 of them. Did we voluntarily choose to go backwards? We didn't have anyone in charge who knew how to win games regularly until Pearson came in. Pearson wasn't given umlimited funds yet still managed to get a team into the play-offs, probably on not much more than the people before him. Allen was given licence to fill the squad with right-backs, Holloway had enough to bring in his own players in the January. Part of the problem lies with Micky Adams policy of signing virtually all over-35s, which meant we had an ageing squad with no sell-on value, then Levein came in and brought in inadequate players, mainly from Scotland. Kelly was a wasted appointment and 2007/08 was just a footballing disaster. Sousa had to go, the squad was a mess and results were appalling. Sven came in, did very well in dragging us up to 7th then we went backwards from there. I thought the decision to sack him was quite hasty, after giving him the summer. Pearson has cut costs (whilst spending money I do admit) and has got a squad that has value in the transfer market. The last 10 years has been unacceptable but far more have been guilty of it than Pearson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityfanlee23 Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 Again, totally wrong. So you're saying we should be better than sides like West Ham? Spurs? Everton? I've never once claimed that Leicester City as a club are achieving what they should be capable of. I just find it absolutely absurd that so much of the flack for this under-achievement is thrown at the one man who's got us nearest to it. As as been said though the City argument is nonsense. Leicester isn't an exclusive football town, Rugby is huge here and we have the best side in the country for that, if you go into East Leicester Cricket will be the top sport with the large Asian Pop. Bristol is a huge city but have two low ranking football teams because again, football isn't the top sport in the City. The idea of "Big City = should have good football" ignores all the cultural factors of a city, Liverpool only produce footballers and two top tier teams as it's the only sport they play, they have never produced a Rugby or Cricket player of International standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylofox Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 Are you claiming that the owners of the club chose to knowingly hold us back by changing managers/players etc? No of course you aren't, all clubs go through change, some move forwards, some move back, you can't just cheery pick the seasons you want when discussing how long we have been out the top division. None of it changes the fact we have been out te top division for 10 years and that isn't good enough. You are right it is not good enough. But also remember for the first 7 years we were lucky to have a bog roll in every shite house at the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corky Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 Again, totally wrong. So you're saying we should be better than sides like West Ham? Spurs? Everton? I've never once claimed that Leicester City as a club are achieving what they should be capable of. I just find it absolutely absurd that so much of the flack for this under-achievement is thrown at the one man who's got us nearest to it. It's because he's got the closest. He's shown he might be capable of ending this mediocrity. Expectations are raised and then dampened unfortunately. All those before his first spell never got close to the top half let alone promotion, people accepted they were shit, there was little hope of promotion or play-offs. Pearson has given us hope of going up, he probably should've done it last season, I certainly hope he can this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityfanlee23 Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 It's because he's got the closest. He's shown he might be capable of ending this mediocrity. Expectations are raised and then dampened unfortunately. All those before his first spell never got close to the top half let alone promotion, people accepted they were shit, there was little hope of promotion or play-offs. Pearson has given us hope of going up, he probably should've done it last season, I certainly hope he can this time. VERY, Well put corky, In a pecan shell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BNET Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 We're actually 14th, Size of city by diameter means nothing to football.... by population we are 14th/15th, I could own an island that is 400 miles wide, but if there are only 7 people living on it, we won't win anything Wrong, smart arse . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BNET Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 Well.. It's not hard if you can read... All UK Towns & Cities in Population Order (2011 Census) Town Population Status 1 London 8,173,941 City 2 Birmingham 1,085,810 City 3 Glasgow 589,900 City 4 Liverpool 552,267 City 5 Bristol 535,907 City 6 Sheffield 518,090 City 7 Manchester 510,746 City 8 Leeds 474,632 City 9 Edinburgh 468,720 City 10 Leicester 443,760 City We are in bloody 10th, THIS WAS 3 YEARS AGO!!! the 2013 poll puts us in about 14th! Jesus christ. EDIT: YOU GAVE ME THE LINK! then claim we are 8th? Which cities are in England, you just get thicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityfanlee23 Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 Wrong, smart arse . correct I think you will find. Go to bed. http://www.ukcities.co.uk/populations/ your unstructured and frankly unintelligent responses with no reasoning or facts, are quite pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityfanlee23 Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 Which cities are in England, you just get thicker. Did you read that? THIS WAS 2011!!!! 3 years ago in a couple of months. If you look at the 2013 figures, Leicester is in 15th including the scottish. I clearly stated. that the figures were out of date. You really are something else. another keyboard warrior with no fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BNET Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 As as been said though the City argument is nonsense. Leicester isn't an exclusive football town, Rugby is huge here and we have the best side in the country for that, if you go into East Leicester Cricket will be the top sport with the large Asian Pop. Bristol is a huge city but have two low ranking football teams because again, football isn't the top sport in the City. The idea of "Big City = should have good football" ignores all the cultural factors of a city, Liverpool only produce footballers and two top tier teams as it's the only sport they play, they have never produced a Rugby or Cricket player of International standard. It's a fact that Leicester is the second biggest city in England (thats England for the benefit of pudding head). So why do you have make excuses about Asians and Rugby, when we are not the only city with Asians and other sports to contend with ? lts just like the rest of this thread, you get a theory (Pearson is a winner) then twist or ignore facts to try and prove you original theory is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BNET Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 correct I think you will find. Go to bed. http://www.ukcities.co.uk/populations/ your unstructured and frankly unintelligent responses with no reasoning or facts, are quite pathetic. You wouldn't understand Lee, you are too thick, and ive about had enough of talking to a bloke who doesn't know what country Glasgow and Edinburgh are in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BNET Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 Did you read that? THIS WAS 2011!!!! 3 years ago in a couple of months. If you look at the 2013 figures, Leicester is in 15th including the scottish. I clearly stated. that the figures were out of date. You really are something else. another keyboard warrior with no fact. Ah Ah ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 It's a fact that Leicester is the second biggest city in England (thats England for the benefit of pudding head). So why do you have make excuses about Asians and Rugby, when we are not the onlt city with Asians and other sports to contend with ? lts just like the rest of this thread, you get a theory (Pearson is a winner) then twist or ognore facts to try and prove you original theory is correct. What other City has a a team that dominates in another major sport as much as us to compete with? And what other has an Asian population as big as ours? Because the culture of a City is far more than it's size, having a good football team has nothing to do with the size of a place, more the makeup of the city and what interest that City carries in football. Despite what people say Leicester just isn't that much of a football city and that goes whether it's got 200,000 in or 2million. Look how much we punch above our weights in other sports, Cricket we have produced Broad and Taylor for England, Rugby we have produced 30 players over the last 15 years. If you walk into a pub that isn't in either the dead centre of town or in a estate on the outskirts the main conversation with people will more than likely be something other than football. It's the same for everything, the most populus countries in the World and China and India but despite being a hundred times bigger than Uruguay and Argentina they won't produce better football teams due to the culture and identity of the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityfanlee23 Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 It's a fact that Leicester is the second biggest city in England (thats England for the benefit of pudding head). So why do you have make excuses about Asians and Rugby, when we are not the only city with Asians and other sports to contend with ? lts just like the rest of this thread, you get a theory (Pearson is a winner) then twist or ignore facts to try and prove you original theory is correct. 1) No it's not. 2) If ANYBODY is ignoring the facts its you, You're one of the most prolific posters on here who post thing without thought, and without fact to back it up. then when asked for a contribution by giving us an insight into why you have an opinion, you go missing for for an hour, then pop up trying to put someone elses post down, It's quite entertaining to be fair, How someone can be wrong on so many subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BNET Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 Well.. It's not hard if you can read... All UK Towns & Cities in Population Order (2011 Census) Town Population Status 1 London 8,173,941 City 2 Birmingham 1,085,810 City 3 Glasgow 589,900 City 4 Liverpool 552,267 City 5 Bristol 535,907 City 6 Sheffield 518,090 City 7 Manchester 510,746 City 8 Leeds 474,632 City 9 Edinburgh 468,720 City 10 Leicester 443,760 City We are in bloody 10th, THIS WAS 3 YEARS AGO!!! the 2013 poll puts us in about 14th! Jesus christ. EDIT: YOU GAVE ME THE LINK! then claim we are 8th? Read what you wrote boy genius.. "we are bloody 10th" and you included 2 Scottish cities. You're not as clever as you tell your mam you are, are you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityfanlee23 Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 You wouldn't understand Lee, you are too thick, and ive about had enough of talking to a bloke who doesn't know what country Glasgow and Edinburgh are in. Look BNET, This is VERY, VERY, simple. The table i was given, says leicester are 10th.. (which is actually 8th when you take the 2 scottish cities out) - Fair enough. that table was in ****ing 2011... and the current figures are that LEICESTER, IS THE 15th BIGGEST CITY IN BRITAIN, AND THE 13TH IN ENGLAND. But you cannot seem to get this around your head. LEICESTER ARE THE 13TH BIGGEST CITY IN ENGLAND!! ACCORDING TO THE LATEST FIGURES!!!! (2013 - the year we are in now remember?) AND FIGURES SHOW IN 2014 LEICESTER ARE EXPECTED TO BE FURTHER DOWN!! Is that simple enough for you to understand? spouting facts when your facts are almost 4 years out of date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BNET Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 1) No it's not. 2) If ANYBODY is ignoring the facts its you, You're one of the most prolific posters on here who post thing without thought, and without fact to back it up. then when asked for a contribution by giving us an insight into why you have an opinion, you go missing for for an hour, then pop up trying to put someone elses post down, It's quite entertaining to be fair, How someone can be wrong on so many subjects. I claim Pearson is not a winner, thats all. He hasn't won anything in his career except division 3, once, he's won nothing else. You claim he is a winner, but he hasn't won anything bar div. 3. We are dealing with straight forward cold facts, but you still can't get it. Perhaps he's a winner in Scotland eh ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityfanlee23 Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 I claim Pearson is not a winner, thats all. He hasn't won anything in his career except division 3, once, he's won nothing else. You claim he is a winner, but he hasn't won anything bar div. 3. We are dealing with straight forward cold facts, but you still can't get it. Perhaps he's a winner in Scotland eh ! So you took my post, which did not have the word "pearson" in it.. and related your answer to a boring thread you were involved in yesterday? You got involved in something you didnt understand when you claimed leicester were the 8th biggest city in england, when they are about 13th/14th .... I really really do feel sorry for your brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BNET Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 Look BNET, This is VERY, VERY, simple. The table i was given, says leicester are 10th.. (which is actually 8th when you take the 2 scottish cities out) - Fair enough. that table was in ****ing 2011... and the current figures are that LEICESTER, IS THE 15th BIGGEST CITY IN BRITAIN, AND THE 13TH IN ENGLAND. But you cannot seem to get this around your head. LEICESTER ARE THE 13TH BIGGEST CITY IN ENGLAND!! ACCORDING TO THE LATEST FIGURES!!!! (2013 - the year we are in now remember?) AND FIGURES SHOW IN 2014 LEICESTER ARE EXPECTED TO BE FURTHER DOWN!! Is that simple enough for you to understand? spouting facts when your facts are almost 4 years out of date. Stop it, you don't understand where these figures come from, l could show you figures that state all sorts, but it wouldn't be relevant, people do not move around from city to city every year, size is pretty much constant. But there you are again trying to prove a theory by ignoring some of the facts. On that note, i'll give you the last word because theres are saying that goes - Don't argue with idiots" night night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxer Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 this has gotten out of hand pretty quickly hasn't it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_w Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 Nigel Pearson is an awful football manager because Leicester is the 8th biggest city in England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox92 Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 Nigel Pearson is an awful football manger because Leicester is the 8th biggest city in England. It's actually laughable though, bringing Geography into a football debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovril Posted 16 October 2013 Share Posted 16 October 2013 Bloody hell never knew there were so many in Cov. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.