Matt_B
Well-Known Member
I agree: but, have they?
No idea, ask Bert
The annoying, but traditional, totally unfounded Summer 2013 rumours thread
- Thread starter Hazzman
- Start date
- Status
No idea, ask Bert
The Old Fox
Well-Known Member
OK :icon_bigg
Matt_B
Well-Known Member
I gave Indikaila a follow for about a week, I'm considering forgiving Bert all his sins now. What a prat.
SJN-Fox
Well-Known Member
Seems like St Ledger has been told he can leave ...
http://www.joe.ie/football/football...g-to-put-himself-in-the-shop-window-0038310-1
http://www.joe.ie/football/football...g-to-put-himself-in-the-shop-window-0038310-1
Han
Active Member
Hardly an exclusive. It has been confirmed that he is staying for one more year at Newcastle Jets.
Biffa Bacon
Well-Known Member
All of the players on the big contracts are available if anyone will take them, SSL is on close to double the pay of Morgan, incidentally Morgan is being linked with a £3m bid from Cardiff which would probably see him going because he is in the last year of his contract.
The Old Fox
Well-Known Member
Cutting the wage bill has to be good and I would not describe SSL as irreplaceable but, taking transfer fees into account, it will not be easy to replace his experience for a lot less money.
I honestly do not understand what is going on at Leicester. We are big spending, cost cutting; we have a manager who MUST get promotion in one season, is building a young squad for the future. Our owners seem committed to Leicester but the grand plan seems to change on a daily basis.
Biffa Bacon
Well-Known Member
It is obvious that the club is now in full cost reduction mode, they will try to offload all of the most expensive players, sell anyone that we get a decent offer for and stick with the current manager because it would cost £3m to sack him. I don't think this has changed recently (last 6 months) and it is the reason we didn't strengthen the squad in January.
Hazzman
New Member
When he's on the pitch, his injury record over the past two years for us has been shocking.
Matt_B
Well-Known Member
And Kane
it's not obvious at the moment; we won't know for a few weeks whether that is the case. offloading ssl, beckford and danns isn't a sign that we're cutting costs full-stop, we have been trying to get rid of them for almost a year, because pearson feels we can't use them and they don't offer value for money.
letting schmeichel or morgan go without meaningfully replacing them would clearly mean we've changed direction/objectives. the owners reigned in the spending even last year, hence why we operated with a small squad, eg no reserve left back, only 4 recognised centre-midfielders, etc. they allowed Pearson to invest significantly, but they didn't give him the blank cheque Sven enjoyed. i'd be happy for the same level of investment this year, and if we can get 2 of danns, beckford and ssl off the wage bill we will probably get that imo
Biffa Bacon
Well-Known Member
I'm relaying what I was told by an 'in the know' at the cricket on Sunday, that's where I got the £3m to sack Nigel figure from and the confirmation a tentative bid has been received for Morgan.
The signings of Wood and Kane on loan didn't significantly increase the wage bill and were considered to be necessary to show some willing to strengthen considering the club originally wanted to start selling season tickets in March.
SJN-Fox
Well-Known Member
The fact is, the club has GOT to be on a cost cuttting mission, it cannot continue spending like it has. The reported £30m loss last year has to be no more that £3m this next season. We have to get our finances within the new parameters or face a transfer embargo. There will be a few clubs with a lot more money to spend than us next year and I think we may well struggle to compete at the top end of the table, especially if we start to offload the better players.
Lako42
Well-Known Member
The fact that we aren't spunking big money on overated toss is a good thing, I hope we can get players with the correct attitude as much as the required ability and see no reason why we would be any worse off position wise than this season.
Last edited:
not doubting what you were told, but i can't believe the owners, having had to sack two managers within about a year, would allow a situation to arise whereby it would cost them £3m to sack Pearson
Biffa Bacon
Well-Known Member
Sounds barmy, I know, but the person in question had access to the accounts in the past and has been right on financial matters at the club in the past. I was sure that they would have a break clause or financial coverage if the required performance levels weren't met but it seems there may not be any.
Last edited:
atlantafox
Member
If the owners are willing to invest 5mn I think we can incur losses of 8mn and still be in compliance - maybe that means the cuts won't have to be so brutal. They already have so much invested, surely next season has to be the biggest push as it only gets worse from a FFP perspective in future seasons ?
- Status
Championship
| P | Pld | Pts | |
| 1 | Leicester | 46 | 97 |
| 2 | Ipswich | 46 | 96 |
| 3 | Leeds Utd | 46 | 90 |
| 4 | Southampton | 46 | 87 |
| 5 | West Brom | 46 | 75 |
| 6 | Norwich City | 46 | 73 |
| 7 | Hull City | 46 | 70 |
| 8 | Middlesbro | 46 | 69 |
| 9 | Coventry City | 46 | 64 |
| 10 | Preston | 46 | 63 |
| 11 | Bristol City | 46 | 62 |
| 12 | Cardiff City | 46 | 62 |
| 13 | Millwall | 46 | 59 |
| 14 | Swansea City | 46 | 57 |
| 15 | Watford | 46 | 56 |
| 16 | Sunderland | 46 | 56 |
| 17 | Stoke City | 46 | 56 |
| 18 | QPR | 46 | 56 |
| 19 | Blackburn | 46 | 53 |
| 20 | Sheffield W | 46 | 53 |
| 21 | Plymouth | 46 | 51 |
| 22 | Birmingham | 46 | 50 |
| 23 | Huddersfield | 46 | 45 |
| 24 | Rotherham Utd | 46 | 27 |
