Shankly

[Rosco]

It's long, but it's a great read.

It's actually too long to cut and past into a message, so click it and have a look for yourself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/oct/18/bill-shankly-liverpool-manager

Bill Shankly: Life, death and football

Liverpool were a second-rate football team until the arrival, 50 years ago, of Bill Shankly. His drive led them to dominate English football and then Europe. When he retired, the club continued to prosper – but Shankly found they were quick to forget the man who made them

 

[Vlads Quiff]

and where should I click Mr Rosco?

 

[Rosco]

A good point well made Vlad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/oct/18/bill-shankly-liverpool-manager

 

[gkmacca]

It's a tiny bit simplistic about Shanks' (non) relationship with the board after he left. They pleaded with him to stay, offered him an extended break, but he was stubborn, forced them to replace him and then came back and caused confusion. After that there seemed to me to be problems on both sides. The club was more in the wrong, because there was an obvious need to show greater respect and gratitude to the man, but Shanks wasn't exactly easy to accommodate. I think he ended up recommending Steve Coppell to the mancs, so angry was he at one stage. Maybe I've misremembered that. But Shanks was someone who was made to go out like Jock Stein did. I'm not sure any solution would have made his retirement much easier to bear.

 

[SaintGeorge67]

Didn't they have to tell him to stop coming to Melwood as it was undermining Bob?

 

[Judge Jules]

Well, they asked him rather than told him, but essentially you're right. I loved Shanks and still see him as the giant on whose shoulders we all stand, but macca (as usual) is spot on. Things didn't end ideally well, but I'm afraid some of the blame for that belongs at Shanks' own door.

 

[gkmacca]

Yes, it's such a sad story. But the idea - subscribed to by Shanks himself - that the mancs handled it better with Matt Busby is itself a bit problematic, because Busby's authorised presence at the club after his retirement proved a real issue for a succession of managers until he eventually settled for a more hands-off role. The idea that all would have been well for Paisley and the club if Shanks had been made a director or president or something seems a bit naive. There was no 'dim switch' in Shanks. He couldn't have been slightly dominant.

 

[Rosco]

Well the article mentions United were relegated while Busby was still involved with United and that may have been on the Board's mind when dealing with Shankly.

There are some parallels with Rafa's situation too, the article describes how Liverpool were run by businessmen who knew little about football, how he missed out on plenty of signings because the board wouldn't sanction the deals and numerous other things that Rafa has had to deal with.