MC Prussian Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 But haven't most of our fans said it was a good thing we didn't break the bank, like QPR, for instance? Well if it WAS Robinson that didn't want to break the bank, then wouldn't most fans agree with him? That's what most have said? I remain confused.. It's certainly a sensible route to follow when you are with a club that still doesn't know whether it'll fit the FFP criteria or not (because they keep getting changed). So, I suppose it was smarter to spend less money in the beginning in order to keep the financial risk in the immediate future down to a controllable minimum.
The Doctor Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Robinson worked with Pulis at Stoke, perhaps we have approached Pulis and he turned round and said I will accept the job only if Robinson goes. Hope that is not the case though. Why would we have done that when Pearsons job isn't in danger? (see below). Too many people trying to see a bigger picture than exists.
cjslcfc Posted 14 December 2014 Author Posted 14 December 2014 But haven't most of our fans said it was a good thing we didn't break the bank, like QPR, for instance? Well if it WAS Robinson that didn't want to break the bank, then wouldn't most fans agree with him? That's what most have said? I remain confused.. Fans want to get quality players in but not break the bank. Just like they want us to create lots of chances and not concede any chances alongside that. You're always going to get contradictory reactions I guess. Surely it would take a lot to break the bank this year, what with Premier League money etc...?? Personally, I see the situation as how I've laid it out in this thread. Could be wrong, could be right. What we do know is we probably need to spend a decent chunk in January to stay up!!
Guest Col city fan Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 It's certainly a sensible route to follow when you are with a club that still doesn't know whether it'll fit the FFP criteria or not (because they keep getting changed). So, I suppose it was smarter to spend less money in the beginning in order to keep the financial risk in the immediate future to a controllable minimum. So, by definition, Robinson did his job did he not? I don't know him, but that's how it appears? Now, it seems, our fans are happy ( as it's clear NOT spending has knackered us), that we SHOULD go out in January and spend lots to stay up..when we all know Jan is notoriously expensive? Doesn't seem well thought out to me?
fleckneymike Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 I don't get this? Explain it to me. Are people saying that it's 'great Robinson has gone' because it was HE that wanted to sign the likes of Upson, Albrighton and the like? I thought the management team identified targets and it was Robinson's job to then try to sign them and to sort out contracts? The same as Sven identified targets but then didn't get involved in the actual transfer dealings? If so, why are people so hung up about Robinson and why is it so great that he's gone? I don't want opinion, but actual info...cos people's reactions to this are puzzling me? If Pearson did want the likes of Cresswell, but money was the issue, then this wouldn't have been Robinson's fault would it? Explain it to me like I'm a three year old.. When you go to the supermarket you are given a shopping list and some money to buy the items on that list, that list will contain items which you absolutely need and some items which are not essential. If, for arguments sake, you're making bolognese sauce, you absolutely need tomatoes, ground beef, onions, and a few herbs. You can garnish it with parmesan, have a side salad, garlic bread etc but non of those are essential to the making of the bolognese. If you return from the shops with beef, onions, parmesan and a side salad you can't have bolognese, indeed you can barely have a meal at all. I would assume that from our shopping list of essentials we missed out on what we needed and got some of the non essentials instead.
cc_star Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Perhaps he's gone now and not at the end of last summer because he's already failing to land identified targets for 1st of January
Strokes Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 But haven't most of our fans said it was a good thing we didn't break the bank, like QPR, for instance? Well if it WAS Robinson that didn't want to break the bank, then wouldn't most fans agree with him? That's what most have said? I remain confused.. Its fine having a wage structure but you have to be successful within it, the board don't feel terry has. Do you?
Guest ttfn Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Wow. I'm glad that Nige is still getting fully backed. So many owners would have failed to see the big picture and caved in at this stage. I'm looking forward to a what needs to be a busy and successful JTW now. Got to get a couple of players in during the first week. Two of the games that will define our season - Villa and Stoke at home - are both mid-January and we can't afford to let those slip by due to inactivity.
Steven Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Pete O'Rourke @SportsPeteO Leicester City director of football Terry Robinson is set to be axed with his contract being terminated. #LCFC
davieG Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 It's obvious he didn't sign any players we'd never heard of. :xmasbiggrin:
Strokes Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Got to get a couple of players in during the first week. Two of the games that will define our season - Villa and Stoke at home - are both mid-January and we can't afford to let those slip by due to inactivity. I think we all need the boost and belief a big signing brings.
Guest Col city fan Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Its fine having a wage structure but you have to be successful within it, the board don't feel terry has. Do you? If we had a thirty grand a week wage cap in the Prem AND it was the management team that provided the targets, then I'd say it would be an almost impossible task. Wouldn't you? As if the Grade A targets would join Leicester on 30k per week? I know nothing of the man, but it appears he's been made the sacrificial lamb. Let's hope this has the desired result, whatever that is.
Guest Col city fan Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Got to get a couple of players in during the first week. Two of the games that will define our season - Villa and Stoke at home - are both mid-January and we can't afford to let those slip by due to inactivity. So is this 'it's good not to spend over the odds' still a good thing, or a bad thing? Are you advocating we now go out and spend tons to stay up?
elangLCFC Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 @Dorselator: Sky Sources: Robinson's sacking may strangely strengthen Pearson's position: #lcfc want new man tasked with signings for crucial Jan window
Guest ttfn Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 So is this 'it's good not to spend over the odds' still a good thing, or a bad thing? Are you advocating we now go out and spend tons to stay up? Where did I say that? We need to do business early because of the way that the fixtures fall, that is all my post says.
yorkie1999 Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 So, by definition, Robinson did his job did he not? I don't know him, but that's how it appears? Now, it seems, our fans are happy ( as it's clear NOT spending has knackered us), that we SHOULD go out in January and spend lots to stay up..when we all know Jan is notoriously expensive? Doesn't seem well thought out to me? Maybe the owners thought that a dof was a good idea but in hindsight they've probably thought its a shit idea to have a guy getting paid bonus' for saving money when the reality is they want to have a team full of 80 grand a week superstars and the lure of gazillions In the premier league is to much to turn down. I for one would be happy to have a team full of top players playing quality football, it's not done man city any harm, and I don't give a shit what they get paid as long as they bring us success. If it goes tits up, the club will still survive. As it stands at the moment were heading for the championship with a bunch of players who think they're better than they actually are
Guest Col city fan Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Where did I say that? We need to do business early because of the way that the fixtures fall, that is all my post says. And pay what for whom?
cc_star Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 So is this 'it's good not to spend over the odds' still a good thing, or a bad thing? Are you advocating we now go out and spend tons to stay up? We were always going to have to, the fact we didn't in the summer means it will cost us more in January I'm sure the board haven't taken the decision lightly, they'd be risking a court case or the needless expense of paying a contract up Perhaps it's a direct result of current negotiations not going how the club needs
RowlattsFox Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 We don't need to buy loads of players but we do need to make sure we sign a couple of players who will make a difference. If that's spending a bit over the top to get them then so be it. Transfer fees aren't the biggest issue, it's wages we don't want to get stuck with.
Guest Col city fan Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Maybe the owners thought that a dof was a good idea but in hindsight they've probably thought its a shit idea to have a guy getting paid bonus' for saving money when the reality is they want to have a team full of 80 grand a week superstars and the lure of gazillions In the premier league is to much to turn down. I for one would be happy to have a team full of top players playing quality football, it's not done man city any harm, and I don't give a shit what they get paid as long as they bring us success. If it goes tits up, the club will still survive. As it stands at the moment were heading for the championship with a bunch of players who think they're better than they actually are So NOW, we should pay whatever? Where are all the posters who argued financial prudency was the way to go? Don't do a QPR etc?
Tuna Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Apologies then to Nigel. Looks like he's been let down. If he and his coaching team have identified the correct players but have been let down by Terry's ineptitude to secure deals for these individuals then he's been dealt a poor hand, what more can he do with what he has? At least the owners have made a statement of sorts, lets hope that we can get the deals done for the right players early in the transfer window..
Bluearmy 316 Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Good the man has ****ed us right up with transfer targets now Pearson can buy who he wants with out having justify it to terry. Just a shame it might be too late
Neil_LCFC Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Robinson seems a bit of a scapegoat to me . Whether he got the deals done or not before the season started is no excuse for us being worse than Burnley who hardly splashed the cash on amazing signings either. Our current run is down to Pearson not getting the best out of our squad and not Robinsons fault. With what we have we shouldn't be bottom 5 points from safety.
Guest Col city fan Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Apologies then to Nigel. Looks like he's been let down. If he and his coaching team have identified the correct players but have been let down by Terry's ineptitude to secure deals for these individuals then he's been dealt a poor hand, what more can he do with what he has? At least the owners have made a statement of sorts, lets hope that we can get the deals done for the right players early in the transfer window.. There must be more to it than that. It can't have been Robinson that set a 30k per week wage cap surely?
Trav Le Bleu Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 We should get craigadams22 as his replacement!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.