Football 2015/16

[ThomThomDrum]

The farce is that they gave him this year and gave him and the committee last summer's transfer window. End of the season should have been the time to make a decision and they did. They decided to keep him then. 7 games later and they get rid. Shower of idiots running the club it seems.  

[pink_triangle]

What was it that Nal was saying about the next 7 games being killers?  Two proved not to be, and the results were good enough for top 4.

 

Rodgers may or may not be any good, but what's on public view isn't dreadful as an average. If anything has killed him it's the out-of-sight promises he's given the board.

 

If the board had unrealistic expectations, but he was happy to take those unrealistic expectations on, is that necessarily unfair.  He was paid a decent amount of money to do the job. Interestingly last time Liverpool were linked with Lambert, Martinez and Rodgers and this time with Klopp and Ancelotti, which could be a sign of progress.

[pink_triangle]

The farce is that they gave him this year and gave him and the committee last summer's transfer window. End of the season should have been the time to make a decision and they did. They decided to keep him then. 7 games later and they get rid. Shower of idiots running the club it seems.  

 

I guess the boards logic is that the players they brought in were the correct ones, but a different coach can get more out of them. Time will tell.

[thetime]

Loads. Where were your shower before Whiskeydick showed up FFS.

Football has changed, where was the money in the 80s?

Liverpool fans still think there success in the 70s and 80s will still attract players.

Carragher hit the nail on the head, Liverpool are just a spurs and a selling club.

[Chris Lfc]

Internationals on this week which I'm looking forward too, since Netherlands is my second favourite country I'm hoping they will take the third spot but it seems unlikely without Robben :/ So odd how a team got so far in the world cup and yet might not even make it to the Euro's! But atleast England are still unbeaten, id like to see him test sturridge + kane upfront with rooney just behind sometime next year since sturridge won't be at these games.

[thetime]

I guess the boards logic is that the players they brought in were the correct ones, but a different coach can get more out of them. Time will tell.

Or a different coach might not rate the players, then it's the merry go round again.

[thetime]

Southampton and Swansea seem to be good examples of well run clubs. Changing managers but seem to just improve year by year and it all seems seamless.

Any ideas how there transfers are run?

[pink_triangle]

Or a different coach might not rate the players, then it's the merry go round again.

 

That's not really how the model works though.  The coach will be aware of the players who are there and told to get them playing better. If he thinks he cant, he doesn't take the job.

[pink_triangle]

Southampton and Swansea seem to be good examples of well run clubs. Changing managers but seem to just improve year by year and it all seems seamless.

Any ideas how there transfers are run?

 

Im almost certain Koeman isn't in charge of transfers at Southampton, not sure about Monk.  I dont think the coach of the European champions is in charge of transfers either.  The "British" idea that  a manager has to buy all the players is outdated.  Theres only a fuss made when a "transfer committee" fails, theres generally silence when it works

[eFestivals]

If the board had unrealistic expectations, but he was happy to take those unrealistic expectations on, is that necessarily unfair.  He was paid a decent amount of money to do the job. Interestingly last time Liverpool were linked with Lambert, Martinez and Rodgers and this time with Klopp and Ancelotti, which could be a sign of progress.

 

He didn't have to take on those unrealistic expectations, nope.

 

But neither did the board have to make unrealistic expectations, nor continue to waste their time and money with a manager knowing they were giving him unrealistic expectations.

 

I think the club have been idiots here. They either should have sacked him at the end of the season or they should have given him longer.

 

It's not like the most recent matches even counted towards anything, as that's clear from the results. The decision to give him the boot was taken weeks ago, and they've kept him hanging around while they got something else lined up, which is a bit c**tish.

[eFestivals]

Southampton and Swansea seem to be good examples of well run clubs. Changing managers but seem to just improve year by year and it all seems seamless.

Any ideas how there transfers are run?

 

they might be well-run, but they're also clubs without huge owner expectations.

 

The two things go hand in hand.

Edited October 5, 2015 by eFestivals

[TheGayTent]

Could easily be argued it was the professional thing to do and good timing with the international break. Unless you're advocating a longer period leaving the club rudderless with no manager.

Doing it this way they're further down the line in terms of manager identification and have 2 weeks to finalise a replacement.

[eFestivals]

That's not really how the model works though.  The coach will be aware of the players who are there and told to get them playing better. If he thinks he cant, he doesn't take the job.

 

that's how it should work. It probably never does tho.

 

Most managers offered a job they want will take it, even if the set-up for that job isn't what they'd like as an ideal. At worst they can only fail and walk away with a big pay-off - it's hardly suicide.

 

Rodgers, for example, has built himself a nice big buy-to-let empire, and never has to work again if he doesn't want to.

[TheGayTent]

Southampton well run? Maybe now, but that's only as a result of racking up debt and then not paying their debts off...

[eFestivals]

Southampton well run? Maybe now, but that's only as a result of racking up debt and then not paying their debts off...

 

Yep. The rugger man (Rupert Lowe, was it?) took the money and ran.

 

But they've been a stable well-run club since then, with a little bit of instability when the owner died and his daughter inherited. It seems to have settled down again since tho.

[ThomThomDrum]

I wonder if he gets the bullet if Liverpool win yesterday? 

 

That would have been fucking really odd. But if the club had made their mind up and have their replacement  in place what would they have done?

[ThomThomDrum]

Loving the reports that Chelski out bid Utd for Martial and wanted him to go back on loan to Monaco, but Martial said "fuck that" and would rather go to Utd and try and play in a club he respects for a lesser amount of cash.

[eFestivals]

I wonder if he gets the bullet if Liverpool win yesterday? 

 

I reckon he would have, yep.

 

Drawing away at Everton isn't a sacking offence under any circumstances, I'd say ... unless the team looked like they weren't interested, which wasn't the case yesterday (the team weren't great, but derbies often aren't).

[pink_triangle]

 

 

I think the club have been idiots here. They either should have sacked him at the end of the season or they should have given him longer.

 

 

However that would depend on the availability of the successor.  Maybe Klopp wasn't interested in the summer, but is now.  Maybe Liverpool felt they had to act now, rather than wait until the summer when there are far more teams on the hunt.

[ThomThomDrum]

However that would depend on the availability of the successor.  Maybe Klopp wasn't interested in the summer, but is now.  Maybe Liverpool felt they had to act now, rather than wait until the summer when there are far more teams on the hunt.

 

This is a very fair point.

 

They felt they have a chance to get a big fish and want to act fast before the likes of Chelski swoop in when they get rid of Moanyhole

[Chris Lfc]

From what I've heard whether he beat Everton or not he was going, I think this was done quite before any of us even knew and it was pretty much inevitable. I think they already have the manager in line but won't release the statement yet, well they must have if they sacked him like that surely.

[GodlikeYeezus]

Personally i'd like to see Villas-Boas manage without being fired within a season. Wouldn't mind Scolari or Redknapp either

[eFestivals]

Wouldn't mind Scolari or Redknapp either

 

I don't see these two or Ancelotti as the sorts of managers the club will go for.

 

I reckon they'll want to try and play moneyball with a manager too, just as they supposedly do with players. Which means they'll go for a manager 'with potential' who is perhaps already on the big-way up but who isn't there yet, and where they'll either be happy to stay and build 'a legacy' or where if Real or Barca (or anyone else) came in for them, they'd make them squeal over compensation payments.

 

Which pretty much says its Klopp, tho I guess there'll be some other possibles.

[TheSilence]

Did he, or is that paper bollocks?

 

I happened to read a Raheem Sterling interview yesterday, and even he had nice things to say about Rodgers.

 

I wouldn't mind reading that actually if you could send me a link. 

 

Sterling isn't the changing room though, is he? He's one player who was particularly young and had the whole world at his feet, he's hardly going to be unhappy is he? 

[Wooderson]

Football has changed, where was the money in the 80s?

Liverpool fans still think there success in the 70s and 80s will still attract players.

Carragher hit the nail on the head, Liverpool are just a spurs and a selling club.

When it comes to Real/Barca and the two Oil clubs, everyone is a selling club. Including yours.

The Spurs thing is fascinating to me. In last 6 years they've finished higher than LFC, yet that doesn't tell the full story.

We'll see what happens when Klopp gets the job. We've a better squad than previous LFC managers have started with.