Fraizer Campbell

[Rhysm]

People seem to be getting hung up over the transfer fee - it is the whole package that is important.

 

I bet if Allbrighton was in contract we would have paid 3 or 4 million at least for him.

[hackneyfox]

Thing is, I'm all with you - but those signings don't necessarily have to be expensive ones.

Agreed, if we can pace, experience and longevity on the cheap then it is of course the way to go.

We haven't done it yet though, we're still to sign someone who the majority would consider as a game changing PL player.

[lcfcsnow]

I just don't know what people expect these days.

We are a newly promoted team after 10 years in the abyss. We might have the money but we're a much better managed club than we've probably ever been. Pearson will make the right signjngs for the club, he's the manager who has got us where we are. Let's leave our trust in him.

 

Southampton, as a newly promoted team after 8 years in the abyss spent 20 million on Gastón Ramírez and Jay Rodriguez, as well as bringing in the likes of Clyne.

 

No excuse not to follow their lead in how to be successful after promotion if there is money available.

[teblin]

Agreed, if we can pace, experience and longevity on the cheap then it is of course the way to go.

We haven't done it yet though, we're still to sign someone who the majority would consider as a game changing PL player.

 

If this forum existed in 1996 we'd have all said the same before that season too.

[Babylon]

 

Southampton, as a newly promoted team after 8 years in the abyss spent 20 million on Gastón Ramírez and Jay Rodriguez, as well as bringing in the likes of Clyne.

 

No excuse not to follow their lead in how to be successful after promotion if there is money available.

 

Is that Southampton who still owe about £30m of those transfer fees and the owner is now wanting to sell the kitchen sink to get her money.

[Bert]

Bertie, this is a football forum is it not?

Of course we leave our trust in Pearson (in the first place, we have to.. he's the boss)

But surely we can discuss the pros and cons of players, tactics, formations, signings etc etc etc.

Or are you saying no we can't?

In your terms it would be 'Trust Pearson. . Close forum'..or words to that effect.

If you'd like to show me any of the times I've said what you can and can't do then go ahead.

I don't choose the way you perceive what i post on here. That's down to you.

[Babylon]

Agreed, if we can pace, experience and longevity on the cheap then it is of course the way to go.

We haven't done it yet though, we're still to sign someone who the majority would consider as a game changing PL player.

If we get them on the cheap, then nobody will think they are all of those things to start with. Someone like Albrighton could be all of those things if you give him a chance though.

 

The whole point is that you try and find/make your own stars, rather than going and buying them for big fees off someone else. I'd rather we go out and find the next big thing, rather than go out and spend a fortune on them once they become a big thing.

 

That's why money doesn't matter, whether you, I or the "majority" think they are good enough doesn't matter, whether they are from the Premier league or the conference doesn't matter. What matters is if they perform and can make us a better unit when we start kicking the ball about.

 

It seems to me people want us to sign big names for big money to make themselves feel better, rather than what's actually right.

[shen]

THEY DO, WE MUST SPEND MONEY OR WE ARE DOOMED!!!!

 

Doomed to another promotion-chasing campaign buffed with PL parachute payments?

That sounds like a pleasant doom.

[hackneyfox]

If we get them on the cheap, then nobody will think they are all of those things to start with. Someone like Albrighton could be all of those things if you give him a chance though.

 

The whole point is that you try and find/make your own stars, rather than going and buying them for big fees off someone else. I'd rather we go out and find the next big thing, rather than go out and spend a fortune on them once they become a big thing.

 

That's why money doesn't matter, whether you, I or the "majority" think they are good enough doesn't matter, whether they are from the Premier league or the conference doesn't matter. What matters is if they perform and can make us a better unit when we start kicking the ball about.

 

It seems to me people want us to sign big names for big money to make themselves feel better, rather than what's actually right.

I think people want a few big signings because it's generally perceived that you'll be getting a better, game changing player.

 

If we can stay up by only spending a couple of million in transfer fees then that would be fantastic, what I don't want to see happen is us struggle early on because we haven't paid for experienced players. If we're struggling come January then it'll be even more difficult/expensive top attract the right players.

[hackneyfox]

Doomed to another promotion-chasing campaign buffed with PL parachute payments?

That sounds like a pleasant doom.

Does it?

It doesn't to me, you get relegated and you lose many of your best players, I don't want to face a couple more years (we thought that last time and it ended up being 10) in the Championship rebuilding and perhaps even losing our owners. We have a great chance of achieving something with the current squad and owners let's not blow it by not risking a few million.

[Happy Fox]

So far the signings we have made haven't improved the first team have they really?, only Albrighton so far who is what I consider to be better player than Dyer, the rest are improvements on the squad players: Hamer> Conrad, Upson> St Ledger/ Miguel.

[LCCFox96]

So far the signings we have made haven't improved the first team have they really?, only Albrighton so far who is what I consider to be better player than Dyer, the rest are improvements on the squad players: Hamer> Conrad, Upson> St Ledger/ Miguel.

Our squad was small. We needed to pad out the squad with that type of signing to give us much better strength in depth. If we could get them in free and cheaper on wages - coming from places like Charlton and Brighton I assume they are cheaper than other options - and early on before preseason then so much the better. Snapping up a few decent frees was to be expected and probably the right move for our first foray into the transfer market this summer. It leaves us with a healthier budget to strengthen the squad by buying in players, like Campbell, who do improve on the starting 11 later on in the window.

[Fox Ulike]

So far the signings we have made haven't improved the first team have they really?, only Albrighton so far who is what I consider to be better player than Dyer, the rest are improvements on the squad players: Hamer> Conrad, Upson> St Ledger/ Miguel.

 

The quality of player that we will need to improve the first team are unlikely to be available on free transfers.

[Babylon]

So far the signings we have made haven't improved the first team have they really?, only Albrighton so far who is what I consider to be better player than Dyer, the rest are improvements on the squad players: Hamer> Conrad, Upson> St Ledger/ Miguel.

 

Have many teams so far? We're already ahead of most.

[PAPA LAZAROU]

I'm not sure that has much to do what he was saying.

 

Nigel himself said on the phone in that if it gets into a auction he will pull us out of the running for the player, he wants people who WANT to play for the club.

 

Exactly. It has nothing to do with a the size of a club. It's the ethos, and that's what got us promoted in the first place . We had that same ethos under O'Neil ( God bless him ) and Pearson has come out of that very same mould. A club our size can only operate successfully with a tight knit squad who want to play for each other and the club as a whole. You only have to look at the alternative in what Sven did to see that.  

[sylofox]

 

 

 

 sorry but i do know what you mean

Some one had too. lol

[65RosesFox]

So far the signings we have made haven't improved the first team have they really?, only Albrighton so far who is what I consider to be better player than Dyer, the rest are improvements on the squad players: Hamer> Conrad, Upson> St Ledger/ Miguel.

Well it's a good job we have over two months left of the window then isn't it.

If we're in the same situation this time in August then we should start to worry.

Until then sit back, relax and enjoy the World Cup.

[sylofox]

I don't think he's trying to compare his record with O'Neill's, more in the sense of his whole ethos and the team he has around him.

 

He builds teams in a certain way, in the sense of putting a huge amount of emphasis on the players as people and not just what they can do on the pitch. Buying players with something to prove still and building a great team spirit.

 

His team are constantly looking for value in players, they won't go out and pay £5m for someone, if they think they can get someone with the same ability for less. The sport science department is leading the field (been told as much by a few people at other clubs). So from that point of view I think Bert is probably correct.

 

Whether he ends up bettering what O'Neill did, or whether he ends up flopping in the prem I don't know. But I have faith in him to have the clubs best interests at heart when he's making the decisions, not because I think he loves us, I'm sure if offered the chance he'd go to a bigger club. But because the way he runs a club, is pretty much exactly how I think a club should be run, and he has values that he also demands from others which I think are right.

Am I wrong in saying that was very much the MoN model.

 

He never rushed in and spent money he wanted players that fitted in with what he already had.

Did not Cottee Marshall taggart and Claridge still not have something to prove.

He also never spent big.

 

Personally the only thing between MoN and NP is where the 2 did it.

Untill now NP has not done it in the prem.

Bert has made out the club has never been run better my point is in time it has been run as well as it is now.

So the 60's cup finals topping div1 and our highest league finish we was a piss poor run club.

Under MoN we was a piss poor run club?

 

The comment IMHO is disrespectful to our 130yrs history.

We started on viccy park and ended up at Filbert street we must have been piss poor run for all those years.

In recent history Bert may be right over 130yrs he is way wrong.

 

I have played for a park side that is way over 100yrs old they still play on a park.

Is that run poorly a village side over 100yrs I would say no as it is still going.

[Babylon]

Am I wrong in saying that was very much the MoN model.

He never rushed in and spent money he wanted players that fitted in with what he already had.

Did not Cottee Marshall taggart and Claridge still not have something to prove.

He also never spent big.

Personally the only thing between MoN and NP is where the 2 did it.

Untill now NP has not done it in the prem.

Bert has made out the club has never been run better my point is in time it has been run as well as it is now.

So the 60's cup finals topping div1 and our highest league finish we was a piss poor run club.

Under MoN we was a piss poor run club?

The comment IMHO is disrespectful to our 130yrs history.

We started on viccy park and ended up at Filbert street we must have been piss poor run for all those years.

In recent history Bert may be right over 130yrs he is way wrong.

I have played for a park side that is way over 100yrs old they still play on a park.

Is that run poorly a village side over 100yrs I would say no as it is still going.

I'm going to give up because you are massively missing the point I and I think Bert was making.

[Harry - LCFC]

No-one's saying we were run badly before, they're simply saying that right now is the best management of the club we've had.

 

Perfection and downright awful aren't the only two options.

[sylofox]

I'm going to give up because you are massively missing the point I and I think Bert was making.

Not even looked at yours.

The point I picked up was Berts saying the club had probably never been run better than at present.

 

Explain to me what I have missed? plse

My point is the club has been run within budget and had success in the past this is not the first time.

NP is a great manager with a great record but upto now it is not the highest point in our history.

 

As a second tier side yes I would give it that accolade without a doubt.

You only have to look at the records broken.

[Babylon]

Not even looked at yours.

The point I picked up was Berts saying the club had probably never been run better than at present.

 

Explain to me what I have missed? plse

My point is the club has been run within budget and had success in the past this is not the first time.

NP is a great manager with a great record but upto now it is not the highest point in our history.

 

As a second tier side yes I would give it that accolade without a doubt.

You only have to look at the records broken.

Well you must have missed something as you keep going on about position of the club, when that isn't what I think Bert was getting at or what I tried to explain in my post. You highlighted chunks of that and ignore stuff that we weren't good at then, for example no sports science.

 

Having actually worked at the club for a short period when O'Neill was there, he wasn't exactly the most professional of people in certain aspects and wanted everything his own way no matter what the cost sometimes.

 

And to be fair to Bert his post did state probably. Which is defined as "as far as one knows or can tell".

 

So, the football side of the club is currently run "as far as I know or can tell" the best it has been. Not based on current position but the overall setup.

[sylofox]

Well you must have missed something as you keep going on about position of the club, when that isn't what I think Bert was getting at or what I tried to explain in my post. You highlighted chunks of that and ignore stuff that we weren't good at then, for example no sports science.

 

Having actually worked at the club for a short period when O'Neill was there, he wasn't exactly the most professional of people in certain aspects and wanted everything his own way no matter what the cost sometimes.

 

And to be fair to Bert his post did state probably. Which is defined as "as far as one knows or can tell".

 

So, the football side of the club is currently run "as far as I know or can tell" the best it has been. Not based on current position but the overall setup.

Ok take what you are saying and agree to a point.

But sports science is something new and is not the whole running of the club.

And that aspect can only be judged over a few years.

 

The 60's 70's and 80's players went out on the piss (yes this season we understand what that can do )

But back then everyone did so it did not matter to a point.

 

You can't claim the club is better run than ever before using new innovations.

It takes a lot more than sports science to run a club.

 

The running of the club can only be judged by what is relevant at the time.

In 20yrs we could claim NP ran a piss poor club because of new innovations.

The running of the club is much more than the team but yes the team is what matters.

 

You would not judge a past F1 driver shite cos he drove an old car and his lap times were slower.

The game has evolved to say it is the best it has ever been run and judge old against new is wrong.

My view was from a level playing field.

 

Would i be wrong saying Kieth weller was one of our best ever and we don't have one to touch him.

But a 28yr old Weller with his training diet and the way the game was would struggle to do 45mins.

[MC Prussian]

Ok take what you are saying and agree to a point.

But sports science is something new and is not the whole running of the club.

And that aspect can only be judged over a few years.

 

The 60's 70's and 80's players went out on the piss (yes this season we understand what that can do )

But back then everyone did so it did not matter to a point.

 

You can't claim the club is better run than ever before using new innovations.

It takes a lot more than sports science to run a club.

 

The running of the club can only be judged by what is relevant at the time.

In 20yrs we could claim NP ran a piss poor club because of new innovations.

The running of the club is much more than the team but yes the team is what matters.

 

You would not judge a past F1 driver shite cos he drove an old car and his lap times were slower.

The game has evolved to say it is the best it has ever been run and judge old against new is wrong.

My view was from a level playing field.

 

Would i be wrong saying Kieth weller was one of our best ever and we don't have one to touch him.

But a 28yr old Weller with his training diet and the way the game was would struggle to do 45mins.

I think Babs was more referring to the overall status of our club in context to its history than just players' fitness.

 

Did they understand what marketing meant in the 50ies, 60ies and 70ies? I suppose only to a certain extent.

The club is working on raising its profile in many positive ways now, managing costs more effectively, whilst improving its facilities and services (in the media department, for instance) and are determined to run a profitable business (thanks to both the owners' support and our recent promotion to the Premier League).

 

The indicators are all there. Sustainability is the key.

Let's also remind ourselves here that Leicester City have never been known to be much of a sellers' club.

Our transfer history is rather flawed, and our transfer balance on the negative side.

From what I recall, over the course of its history, the club has mostly made losses each season and usually managed to just scrape by.

[Hack]

Bertie, this is a football forum is it not?

Of course we leave our trust in Pearson (in the first place, we have to.. he's the boss)

But surely we can discuss the pros and cons of players, tactics, formations, signings etc etc etc.

Or are you saying no we can't?

In your terms it would be 'Trust Pearson. . Close forum'..or words to that effect.

Col,

 

I am sure Bert is not saying that people can express an opinion about anything, positive or negative.  

 

The issue as I see it is the absolute position mostly in the negative that is taken.  The sort of comments like he is crap that is way to much it should be no more than this etc.  It is one thing to discuss and then express an opinion, but the lack of subjectivity in particular from those on the negative side of the discussion, any discussion is what I thin Bert, Babs and people like myself take exception to.

 

You don't see either potentially insulting or derogatory comments on any subject by those supporting a decesion made by the club or even in support of a player the club may be looking at.  You don't see over the top comments like we must have at all costs!! or If we don't get him I will quit supporting the club and the you get the jist.

 

It does seem that there is an age difference between those on the negative side of discussions/arguments and those on the positive. I could be wrong but I would guess those like AgentFox as an example is south of 20, who I am sure is a great fan of the club but has little to know real knowledge of the game, the business of a club and general experience.

 

As I said I could be wrong.