[/QUOTE] This from a Leeds fan, the first club in the country that tried to buy their way to the European Cup!!
This from a Leeds fan, the first club in the country that tried to buy their way to the European Cup!![/QUOTE] 1. And it nearly destroyed our club. 2. With the group of players we had coming through the youth system we could have done it without the crazy spending, we did manage to finish 3rd.
I think we did ruin the transfer market in the championship in the summer. A championship paying around 5M for a defender is absurd, neither mind offering 9M for Nicky Maynard and 6.5M for Nikica Jelavic. A top championship player used to cost around 3M and because we was throwing money around here there and everywhere other clubs just knocked a couple of million on the end of price tags. Nigel is trying to sort that out and we will no longer spend stupidly but has the damage already been done who knows. If Nigel doesnt feel he is getting a reasonable price he will get elsewhere. He has proved this with Billy Sharp by not offering stupidly high wages. Had Sven wanted Cameron Stewart we probably would have signed him already but Hull would of got around 4-5M for him. Chelsea paid 50M for Fernando Torres and Liverpool 35M for Andy Carroll. Torres on top form is probably worth that but Carroll is nothing more then an average striker. Clubs are more then happy to waste money nowadays because they all chase success. You need to build for success not buy it and thats what Nigel is doing with us.
All this ruining football stuff is bull. All that matters is spending within your means. Lots of clubs, including Leeds, didn't do this, supplementing their spending with loans and money that simply isn't there. We haven't been doing this, and therefore we'll be fine. So will the rest of football. Mill's price tag is a different issue - no Championship defender is worth that in my opinion and we should never have offered that. As long as we only spend on players what they are worth, then it's fine. Mills was the only time this didn't happen as far as I'm concerned, every other players has been worth their price tag (even £2.5M Beckford I'm now beginning to believe). Aside from transfer fees, there's the wages, but our aim is to be a Premiership club in all but name. Therefore, this infrastructure is being put in place now. Again, as long as we're within our means, this is fine. No end of players have knocked us back, so our package offers can't be that irresistible. I'm sorry, but comments about "ruining football" from rival fans are instigated by jealousy. Jealousy that we have better prospects of promotion, a better long term future, and jealousy because we're using money to set us up the right way, not spending money we haven't got, unlike some other clubs I could name did.
Im not jealous of Leicester in anyway. And why would I be, we are a better, bigger club with a much bigger fan base and a better history, not to mention we are above you in the league and we have a better team with a better manager. I literally have no reason to be jealous of leicester
If you believe what you'd just typed, I'd agree. But you know it's all bull (apart from being above us in the league, but that will change shortly).
I do believe what I just typed, and if you dont thats fine. Doesnt make either of us right or wrong (but obviously im right)
Proud Fox and Simon. Well said. And Gangsta, I'd be unhappy with my own club breaking spending precedents again. It's not good to see for the health of football, and it promotes the whole success = rich thing rather than success = hard-working, skilful, well-managed and so on as football overwhelmingly used to be back in the days when divisions were competitive and not closed at the top like the Premiership has been.
I have mixed issues over grayson. I have always said he needs to be given this season to try and get us promoted (dont laugh) because of how far he has taken us. This season, the more i see leeds the more i see issues with grayson, he pre-plans his substitutes as if he already knows before the game who he is gonna bring on for who and when, but not only that a lot of stuff. I still think he is better than Pearson though, personally I dont rate Pearson. He never really has achieved anything, he has bettered clubs, no doubt but hasn't done anything special whereas grayson is continually improvingwith no money. You may rate pearson but I dont
I think Pearson improved us with no money first time around, he certainly improved Hull with no money. He saved Carlisle from relegation out of the football league and Southampton from relegation to League 1 at our expense. He took us up from league 1 to the play offs and was forced out then built Hull a squad thats easily going to a playoff team this season. Grayson has taken two teams out of league 1 and stabalised them in the championship. There really isnt that much difference in what theyve achieved.
I think we both have good young managers. Neither are the end product, but both with great promise. Pearson I rate higher, because he saved Southampton, got us promoted first time with some greatly astute signings (and integrated the over-looked Gradel into the side for the first time), got us to a play-off semi-final in which we won away on Cardiff and lost on penos, prevented Hull from becoming a laughing stock and dropping to League One, now he seems have got us (over the last two games at least) playing good football for the first time this season. This is all over the space of five years! What more could you ask for? And until this season, he did all those things with little funding, and even this season, he has started turfing out the misfits and bringing in some shrewd signings. Pearson is a top manager at this level, and whilst I think Grayson is decent, I know who I'll rather have.
Ok, he has done little wrong. By that though so has grayson. He got leeds promotion with his first full season and took us to 7th in the championship in his second full season (bearing in mind we were challenging for autos for half the season and play-offs for the final month of the season). In his third season he is challenging for play-offs again with a (very) outside chance of autos. He has done nothing wrong according to that. However, his tactics do not change dependant on what team we play, his man-management is disgustingly bad and does not get the best out of his players because he is almost unable to motivate them. As I said before, his substitutes are pre-planned before the game and it is not dependant on who is playing bad and who is playing good, if he decides Nunez is coming on for Sam prior to the game but Sam is having a fantastic game he'll still be subbed for Nunez. He can't decide on what formation he wants to play nor can he decide what team he wants to play when everyone is fit, he has his favourite players and will play them regardless of whether they are playing well or not (eg. Becchio). He also massively relies on certain players to give leeds the spark (Snodgrass and Howson) and if they are not playing well then he is lost for ideas. Our defence has been the worse defence at leeds ever since he joined and he still hasn't been able to sort it out. His signings are questionable at best and he has spent money on some of the worst ever leeds players. Now, one of those paragraphs are facts and the other is an opinion (mine obviously). the facts make him sound like a good manager but my current opinion on him makes him sound like a bad manager (bearing in mind I didn't state anything I think he is good at for the point of this argument). My point is facts and stats on managers and players do not portray what they are actually like and whether they are good or not. Facts and stats are decieving
Leeds do have Ken Bates at the helm....an investor/chairman/crook that most LUFC fans would like to change. I for one would be interested to see how the Leeds fans would react if they replaced Bates with an overseas wealthy backer...surely given the current opinions on here they would be protesting just as much as they are currently protesting against Captain Birdseye!
Its not a problem if you spend within your means. It's an idealist notion that clubs are only worthy of success if they don't spend large sums of money. It all depends on the club. Do you not think that Man City and Chelsea haven't bought their success over the recent years? They had a recent history of mediocrity until they struck gold. It doesn't guarantee success but increases your chances of it. All the better if clubs can develop talent from their own youth system or snap up and develop young players at low cost (as we have done with our recent signing of Danny Drinkwater) but its still reasuring to know that if a decent player becomes available we are in with a reasonable shout of competing with other clubs. Likewise Leeds fans, its no good pursuing a youth policy if you can't keep them. How can a genuine local talent like Jonthan Howson who came up through your ranks (and was your captain) decide that Norwich are a better proposition! That's not being disrespectful to Norwich either. Its down to 2 reasons - Finances or ambition, take your pick. Either one finally kills the myth that Leeds are still a big club.
honestly, i wouldn't be happy if an investor similar to manchester city's case took over leeds united. I do not protest Ken Bates now and I wouldn't then but I wouldn't be entirely happy with it and I certainly wouldn't be showing off that to others (which is sorta what leicester fans did during the summer, hence people are liking to prove you wrong recently) And Happy Fox, Finances certainly does not make you a big club for obvious reasons. And ambition doesn't necessarilly, for example it is Tottenham's ambition to win the premier league (or at least was before the man city game) however it is liverpool's ambition to make top 4. Which club is bigger? Again, it is brighton's ambition to make top 6 and it is Nottingham Forest's ambition to not get relegated. Which is the bigger club? Club size isn't really much to do with ambition or finance, so you have been misguided there
Best ways of seeing a size of a club is how big the fan base is. Winning trophies obviously helps but you can win all the trophies in the world but if you have no fans its rather pointless But saying that success does get you more fans
But those days are gone and gone for ever. Because football is so popular, and because this is a capitalist society, there's lots of money to be made from it. Those that invest heavy (usually) get success and therefore that returns on there investments. Therefore, the only way to really achieve in the long term these days is to have investment. Some clubs owners attempt to do this by spending money they don't have, they're so desperate to be successful. This is NOT the case at Leicester. I know you have a learning for the good ol' days 18, but they'll never return. So you have three choices, sit and reminisce about Leeds' glory days and don't bother with modern football, start following a sport that isn't overrun with money (let me know if you find one) or sit back and wait for Leeds to have their day again. I don't see Leeds being successful again until they get big money investment, just as I didn't see it happening to us either.
