S
Squiggles
Guest
Because Liverpool are a much, much bigger club than Fulham will ever be.
This matters.
This matters.
The Welcome and good luck Woy thread
- Thread starter Buddha
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
[quote author=Jack D Rips link=topic=40759.msg1127767#msg1127767 date=1277741806]
What makes me laugh at these people who want Hodgson sacked before he even gets the job, is that not one of them has come up with a credible alternative.
Im still wondering why Hodgson would even come to us, if as some people seem to think, he is only a stopgap until the club is sold
[/quote]
It's not that people want him sacked, they just don't want him appointed in the first place.
What makes me laugh at these people who want Hodgson sacked before he even gets the job, is that not one of them has come up with a credible alternative.
Im still wondering why Hodgson would even come to us, if as some people seem to think, he is only a stopgap until the club is sold
[/quote]
It's not that people want him sacked, they just don't want him appointed in the first place.
[quote author=KopKing link=topic=40759.msg1127765#msg1127765 date=1277741416]
Ha ha Indeed. Why anyone would put Hodgson in the same sentence as Shanks/Paisley, let alone make any sort of comparison without irony, is beyond me. Hodgson is not the calibre of manager we should be looking at as a top team unless its our intention to no longer be a top team.
Yes he may surprise us and be another Paisley, but at his age and stage of career, it's highly unlikely. No matter what spin some misguided posters want to put on it, he should not be allowed anywhere near our club, whether he's 'Shanks in disguise' or not.
[/quote]
'Shanks in disguise'?
You really dont get the point I was trying to make, so I'm going to stop trying to explain.
You go ahead & make 'Hodgson Out' banners or whatever the hell you're planning & try to make our club sack a manager after a few months & become a laughing stock like Newcastle.
Then I'm sure Mourinho will be beating the door down to come here instead.
Ha ha Indeed. Why anyone would put Hodgson in the same sentence as Shanks/Paisley, let alone make any sort of comparison without irony, is beyond me. Hodgson is not the calibre of manager we should be looking at as a top team unless its our intention to no longer be a top team.
Yes he may surprise us and be another Paisley, but at his age and stage of career, it's highly unlikely. No matter what spin some misguided posters want to put on it, he should not be allowed anywhere near our club, whether he's 'Shanks in disguise' or not.
[/quote]
'Shanks in disguise'?
You really dont get the point I was trying to make, so I'm going to stop trying to explain.
You go ahead & make 'Hodgson Out' banners or whatever the hell you're planning & try to make our club sack a manager after a few months & become a laughing stock like Newcastle.
Then I'm sure Mourinho will be beating the door down to come here instead.
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=40759.msg1127772#msg1127772 date=1277742367]
[quote author=KopKing link=topic=40759.msg1127765#msg1127765 date=1277741416]
Ha ha Indeed. Why anyone would put Hodgson in the same sentence as Shanks/Paisley, let alone make any sort of comparison without irony, is beyond me. Hodgson is not the calibre of manager we should be looking at as a top team unless its our intention to no longer be a top team.
Yes he may surprise us and be another Paisley, but at his age and stage of career, it's highly unlikely. No matter what spin some misguided posters want to put on it, he should not be allowed anywhere near our club, whether he's 'Shanks in disguise' or not.
[/quote]
'Shanks in disguise'?
You really dont get the point I was trying to make, so I'm going to stop trying to explain.
You go ahead & make 'Hodgson Out' banners or whatever the hell you're planning & try to make our club sack a manager after a few months & become a laughing stock like Newcastle.
Then I'm sure Mourinho will be beating the door down to come here instead.
[/quote]
No I got your point. It was just stupid. I have no intention of making Hodgson Out banners or indeed do anything to get him the sack. Why you would think that without any fucking evidence is mystifying. I'd suggest that you want to divert the issue from the crap you spouted about your misguided Shankly/Paisley comparison. Laughing stock like Newcastle? Hire Hodgson and we will be one, if we're not one already.
[quote author=KopKing link=topic=40759.msg1127765#msg1127765 date=1277741416]
Ha ha Indeed. Why anyone would put Hodgson in the same sentence as Shanks/Paisley, let alone make any sort of comparison without irony, is beyond me. Hodgson is not the calibre of manager we should be looking at as a top team unless its our intention to no longer be a top team.
Yes he may surprise us and be another Paisley, but at his age and stage of career, it's highly unlikely. No matter what spin some misguided posters want to put on it, he should not be allowed anywhere near our club, whether he's 'Shanks in disguise' or not.
[/quote]
'Shanks in disguise'?
You really dont get the point I was trying to make, so I'm going to stop trying to explain.
You go ahead & make 'Hodgson Out' banners or whatever the hell you're planning & try to make our club sack a manager after a few months & become a laughing stock like Newcastle.
Then I'm sure Mourinho will be beating the door down to come here instead.
[/quote]
No I got your point. It was just stupid. I have no intention of making Hodgson Out banners or indeed do anything to get him the sack. Why you would think that without any fucking evidence is mystifying. I'd suggest that you want to divert the issue from the crap you spouted about your misguided Shankly/Paisley comparison. Laughing stock like Newcastle? Hire Hodgson and we will be one, if we're not one already.
It wasnt misguided at all.
Shankly had won nothing when he became Liverpool manager, Roy Hodgson hasnt either. Simple really.
Shankly had won nothing when he became Liverpool manager, Roy Hodgson hasnt either. Simple really.
[quote author=localny link=topic=40759.msg1127760#msg1127760 date=1277740842]
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=40759.msg1127752#msg1127752 date=1277739797]
[quote author=localny link=topic=40759.msg1127749#msg1127749 date=1277739629]
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=40759.msg1127747#msg1127747 date=1277739503]
[quote author=localny link=topic=40759.msg1127744#msg1127744 date=1277739458]
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=40759.msg1127740#msg1127740 date=1277739242]
I wouldn't waste your breath Foxy, some people have made their minds up already.
The trouble is , which will be much worse, such is the nature of many of the inhabitants of these forums , they are too intransigent to change their minds, and will keep jumping on every opportunity to say "I told you so", because they just have to be seen as having been right, regardless of the situation we are in.
I have tried to keep out of it as much as possible, but some of the shite about Hodgson spouted on here over the last couple of weeks has been very poor, and some of it by posters I thought much better of to be honest.
It really has left me questioning if it is a place I want to be.
regards
[/quote]
But Vladdy, is it not a little high handed to assume people are intransigent just because they won't agree with you. Look, a top 4 finish next season, some good signings, some improvement in play, I'll be the first to put my hands up. I'm not interested in bring right here at all. I just think we're lowering our standards because of one bad season and a mountain of debt. Both of which could be gone by next season - if we have a good manager (the ownership thing will get sorted)...
I'm against this appointment for no other reason, than i think he's not up to the grade, yet I have immature eejits calling me a nobhead. But there seems to be some other decent posters. You'll always have the foul mouthed fools...
[/quote]
Fuck off
regards
[/quote]
you just became what you Slagged off. Lovely!
REGARDS
[/quote]
You Yanks don't do irony do you ?
regards
[/quote]
Err i'll ask any yanks if I see them....(PS Ironic statements always need a little help online...)
[/quote]
I would have thought it obvious enough not to need a smiley. 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉
regards
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=40759.msg1127752#msg1127752 date=1277739797]
[quote author=localny link=topic=40759.msg1127749#msg1127749 date=1277739629]
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=40759.msg1127747#msg1127747 date=1277739503]
[quote author=localny link=topic=40759.msg1127744#msg1127744 date=1277739458]
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=40759.msg1127740#msg1127740 date=1277739242]
I wouldn't waste your breath Foxy, some people have made their minds up already.
The trouble is , which will be much worse, such is the nature of many of the inhabitants of these forums , they are too intransigent to change their minds, and will keep jumping on every opportunity to say "I told you so", because they just have to be seen as having been right, regardless of the situation we are in.
I have tried to keep out of it as much as possible, but some of the shite about Hodgson spouted on here over the last couple of weeks has been very poor, and some of it by posters I thought much better of to be honest.
It really has left me questioning if it is a place I want to be.
regards
[/quote]
But Vladdy, is it not a little high handed to assume people are intransigent just because they won't agree with you. Look, a top 4 finish next season, some good signings, some improvement in play, I'll be the first to put my hands up. I'm not interested in bring right here at all. I just think we're lowering our standards because of one bad season and a mountain of debt. Both of which could be gone by next season - if we have a good manager (the ownership thing will get sorted)...
I'm against this appointment for no other reason, than i think he's not up to the grade, yet I have immature eejits calling me a nobhead. But there seems to be some other decent posters. You'll always have the foul mouthed fools...
[/quote]
Fuck off
regards
[/quote]
you just became what you Slagged off. Lovely!
REGARDS
[/quote]
You Yanks don't do irony do you ?
regards
[/quote]
Err i'll ask any yanks if I see them....(PS Ironic statements always need a little help online...)
[/quote]
I would have thought it obvious enough not to need a smiley. 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉
regards
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=40759.msg1127772#msg1127772 date=1277742367]
[quote author=KopKing link=topic=40759.msg1127765#msg1127765 date=1277741416]
Ha ha Indeed. Why anyone would put Hodgson in the same sentence as Shanks/Paisley, let alone make any sort of comparison without irony, is beyond me. Hodgson is not the calibre of manager we should be looking at as a top team unless its our intention to no longer be a top team.
Yes he may surprise us and be another Paisley, but at his age and stage of career, it's highly unlikely. No matter what spin some misguided posters want to put on it, he should not be allowed anywhere near our club, whether he's 'Shanks in disguise' or not.
[/quote]
'Shanks in disguise'?
You really dont get the point I was trying to make, so I'm going to stop trying to explain.
You go ahead & make 'Hodgson Out' banners or whatever the hell you're planning & try to make our club sack a manager after a few months & become a laughing stock like Newcastle.
Then I'm sure Mourinho will be beating the door down to come here instead.
[/quote]
I don't think he's saying that FFF. All that shit can go in the "Fuck off Hodgson" thread.
[quote author=KopKing link=topic=40759.msg1127765#msg1127765 date=1277741416]
Ha ha Indeed. Why anyone would put Hodgson in the same sentence as Shanks/Paisley, let alone make any sort of comparison without irony, is beyond me. Hodgson is not the calibre of manager we should be looking at as a top team unless its our intention to no longer be a top team.
Yes he may surprise us and be another Paisley, but at his age and stage of career, it's highly unlikely. No matter what spin some misguided posters want to put on it, he should not be allowed anywhere near our club, whether he's 'Shanks in disguise' or not.
[/quote]
'Shanks in disguise'?
You really dont get the point I was trying to make, so I'm going to stop trying to explain.
You go ahead & make 'Hodgson Out' banners or whatever the hell you're planning & try to make our club sack a manager after a few months & become a laughing stock like Newcastle.
Then I'm sure Mourinho will be beating the door down to come here instead.
[/quote]
I don't think he's saying that FFF. All that shit can go in the "Fuck off Hodgson" thread.
No, the only banner he's liable to make is a 'Come Back Rafa' one.
What's so incorrect about JOn's point?
Using track records as a barometer to appoint coaches is of course the sensible thing to do; but to suggest that appointing a coach without an impressive track record is fatal is also unfair.
There have been instances where coaches have been successful even though they dont boast such stellar records. At the same time, its also painfully clear from England's exit that coaches with magnificent track records can fail just as badly.
What's so incorrect about JOn's point?
Using track records as a barometer to appoint coaches is of course the sensible thing to do; but to suggest that appointing a coach without an impressive track record is fatal is also unfair.
There have been instances where coaches have been successful even though they dont boast such stellar records. At the same time, its also painfully clear from England's exit that coaches with magnificent track records can fail just as badly.
Moyes is a good example.
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=40759.msg1127846#msg1127846 date=1277749121]
No, the only banner he's liable to make is a 'Come Back Rafa' one.
What's so incorrect about JOn's point?
Using track records as a barometer to appoint coaches is of course the sensible thing to do; but to suggest that appointing a coach without an impressive track record is fatal is also unfair.
There have been instances where coaches have been successful even though they dont boast such stellar records. At the same time, its also painfully clear from England's exit that coaches with magnificent track records can fail just as badly.
[/quote]
What's wrong with Jon's point is that it's based on not one but two false premises:
False premise no.1 - we were a big club when we appointed Shanks (witness Jon's reference to "a club as big as ours"😉. Afraid not - we were actually a mid-table club in what's now called the Championship.
False premise no.2 - Roy Hodgson's lack of a successful record is analogous to that of Shanks. It isn't. Shanks was a new manager not far beyond the beginning of his career and simply hadn't had time to build up a track record. Roy by contrast is a highly experienced manager with a lengthy career behind him who has done OK at times, but no more than that.
Of course it's true that, as those ads for investment in financial products always say, "past performance is no guarantee of future return". That does not automatically invalidate the doubts that a fair few of us have about this appointment. I should add that most of us have made it clear we'll get behind whoever is appointed. Granted there's been the odd classless exception to that, but nowhere near as often as equally classless vitriol has been aimed in our direction.
No, the only banner he's liable to make is a 'Come Back Rafa' one.
What's so incorrect about JOn's point?
Using track records as a barometer to appoint coaches is of course the sensible thing to do; but to suggest that appointing a coach without an impressive track record is fatal is also unfair.
There have been instances where coaches have been successful even though they dont boast such stellar records. At the same time, its also painfully clear from England's exit that coaches with magnificent track records can fail just as badly.
[/quote]
What's wrong with Jon's point is that it's based on not one but two false premises:
False premise no.1 - we were a big club when we appointed Shanks (witness Jon's reference to "a club as big as ours"😉. Afraid not - we were actually a mid-table club in what's now called the Championship.
False premise no.2 - Roy Hodgson's lack of a successful record is analogous to that of Shanks. It isn't. Shanks was a new manager not far beyond the beginning of his career and simply hadn't had time to build up a track record. Roy by contrast is a highly experienced manager with a lengthy career behind him who has done OK at times, but no more than that.
Of course it's true that, as those ads for investment in financial products always say, "past performance is no guarantee of future return". That does not automatically invalidate the doubts that a fair few of us have about this appointment. I should add that most of us have made it clear we'll get behind whoever is appointed. Granted there's been the odd classless exception to that, but nowhere near as often as equally classless vitriol has been aimed in our direction.
That's fair enough, Jules..but that still entails a great deal of speculation on the part of those posters denigrating Hodgson's ability. I myself would prefer someone with a better track record, but I think it's harsh to assume that he couldnt do a very good job here. I still don't see how Jon's post was incorrect. If we want to talk about false premises, then one could also argue that a coach with the credentials of Capello would be certain to do a great job in England; in fact I thought he would as well.
Does this mean I wouldnt want Capelo here? Of course not, he does after all have that fantastic record I've just referred to. And as we've heard too often on this forum, 'managers dont turn to shit over night'.
I would just urge that we didnt place too much on the past. Having said that, I'd echo the same statements to those posters insisting on the appointment of a British manager like HOdgson or Redknapp as only a British manager would understand the Premier League.
Does this mean I wouldnt want Capelo here? Of course not, he does after all have that fantastic record I've just referred to. And as we've heard too often on this forum, 'managers dont turn to shit over night'.
I would just urge that we didnt place too much on the past. Having said that, I'd echo the same statements to those posters insisting on the appointment of a British manager like HOdgson or Redknapp as only a British manager would understand the Premier League.
Well, I'm glad to be able to agree fully with your final para.at least. 😉
I'm certainly not assuming, and I don't think most of us doubters are assuming, that Roy definitely *can't* do a good job here. Our concern centres on the fact that there's no evidence - from what has already been a long career - that he CAN do a job at the level we require, which is a rather different matter.
We may have to agree to disagree on Jon's post. I've set out where I think the holes in it are. If you disagree, I'd be genuinely interested in why.
I'm certainly not assuming, and I don't think most of us doubters are assuming, that Roy definitely *can't* do a good job here. Our concern centres on the fact that there's no evidence - from what has already been a long career - that he CAN do a job at the level we require, which is a rather different matter.
We may have to agree to disagree on Jon's post. I've set out where I think the holes in it are. If you disagree, I'd be genuinely interested in why.
If we're talking about 'doubters', then you can count me as one of them, Jules.
I just think it's too soon to rule anything out; Jon himself has indicated he'd rather someone else, incidentally.Where I differ is with stupid assumptions made, ie that Jon thinks Hodgson is the next Shankly. You yourself have highlighted where I'm coming from (ie past performances dont guarantee future results).
I just think it's too soon to rule anything out; Jon himself has indicated he'd rather someone else, incidentally.Where I differ is with stupid assumptions made, ie that Jon thinks Hodgson is the next Shankly. You yourself have highlighted where I'm coming from (ie past performances dont guarantee future results).
Fair enough, Avvy. Just to add: if Roy gets the job he'll get my support, unless/until there's clear evidence that he no longer deserves it - and I'll be as pleased as anyone here if that day doesn't arrive.
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=40759.msg1127864#msg1127864 date=1277750892]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=40759.msg1127846#msg1127846 date=1277749121]
No, the only banner he's liable to make is a 'Come Back Rafa' one.
What's so incorrect about JOn's point?
Using track records as a barometer to appoint coaches is of course the sensible thing to do; but to suggest that appointing a coach without an impressive track record is fatal is also unfair.
There have been instances where coaches have been successful even though they dont boast such stellar records. At the same time, its also painfully clear from England's exit that coaches with magnificent track records can fail just as badly.
[/quote]
What's wrong with Jon's point is that it's based on not one but two false premises:
False premise no.1 - we were a big club when we appointed Shanks (witness Jon's reference to "a club as big as ours"😉. Afraid not - we were actually a mid-table club in what's now called the Championship.
False premise no.2 - Roy Hodgson's lack of a successful record is analogous to that of Shanks. It isn't. Shanks was a new manager not far beyond the beginning of his career and simply hadn't had time to build up a track record. Roy by contrast is a highly experienced manager with a lengthy career behind him who has done OK at times, but no more than that.
Of course it's true that, as those ads for investment in financial products always say, "past performance is no guarantee of future return". That does not automatically invalidate the doubts that a fair few of us have about this appointment. I should add that most of us have made it clear we'll get behind whoever is appointed. Granted there's been the odd classless exception to that, but nowhere near as often as equally classless vitriol has been aimed in our direction.
[/quote]
Thank you. A perfectly reasonable argument.
I agree, to a point. Where I differ is, no matter where Liverpool were at the time, Shanks went on to become a legend, having done nothing of any true note beforehand.
Yes, it's an extreme reasoning, but in the face of people simply writing a perfectly good manager off & deciding there's zero chance of him actually improving us (which base on last season I'm sure he would) that level of reasoning is required.
KK's argument that I was trying to infer Hodgson is the next Shankly was way off the mark, (being polite here) & what annoyed me so much, I wasnt saying that, merely using the example to point out that managers can be successful at the highest level despite not having won things elsewhere first.
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=40759.msg1127846#msg1127846 date=1277749121]
No, the only banner he's liable to make is a 'Come Back Rafa' one.
What's so incorrect about JOn's point?
Using track records as a barometer to appoint coaches is of course the sensible thing to do; but to suggest that appointing a coach without an impressive track record is fatal is also unfair.
There have been instances where coaches have been successful even though they dont boast such stellar records. At the same time, its also painfully clear from England's exit that coaches with magnificent track records can fail just as badly.
[/quote]
What's wrong with Jon's point is that it's based on not one but two false premises:
False premise no.1 - we were a big club when we appointed Shanks (witness Jon's reference to "a club as big as ours"😉. Afraid not - we were actually a mid-table club in what's now called the Championship.
False premise no.2 - Roy Hodgson's lack of a successful record is analogous to that of Shanks. It isn't. Shanks was a new manager not far beyond the beginning of his career and simply hadn't had time to build up a track record. Roy by contrast is a highly experienced manager with a lengthy career behind him who has done OK at times, but no more than that.
Of course it's true that, as those ads for investment in financial products always say, "past performance is no guarantee of future return". That does not automatically invalidate the doubts that a fair few of us have about this appointment. I should add that most of us have made it clear we'll get behind whoever is appointed. Granted there's been the odd classless exception to that, but nowhere near as often as equally classless vitriol has been aimed in our direction.
[/quote]
Thank you. A perfectly reasonable argument.
I agree, to a point. Where I differ is, no matter where Liverpool were at the time, Shanks went on to become a legend, having done nothing of any true note beforehand.
Yes, it's an extreme reasoning, but in the face of people simply writing a perfectly good manager off & deciding there's zero chance of him actually improving us (which base on last season I'm sure he would) that level of reasoning is required.
KK's argument that I was trying to infer Hodgson is the next Shankly was way off the mark, (being polite here) & what annoyed me so much, I wasnt saying that, merely using the example to point out that managers can be successful at the highest level despite not having won things elsewhere first.
It's plain to see that should Roy Hodgson be appointed Manager it is likely to further divide fans (going by this forum), especially if he's unsuccessfull early on.
I thought that Dalglish was the only name I've heard to date who can carry the crowd and the players with him and put us all in a better mood about the clubs management.
Dalglish would have the trust which I don't think Hodgson will enjoy. He seems an obvious choice for an interim Manager.
Does anyone feel that Hodgson will be a success? and if so what will that success look like?
I thought that Dalglish was the only name I've heard to date who can carry the crowd and the players with him and put us all in a better mood about the clubs management.
Dalglish would have the trust which I don't think Hodgson will enjoy. He seems an obvious choice for an interim Manager.
Does anyone feel that Hodgson will be a success? and if so what will that success look like?
It's too early to say yet Jexy, i think we need to wait and see how he's allowed to operate in the transfer market first. I'd fancy him to get us back in the CL (which would be a job well done) if he can at least have say £10m-£15m + any sales money to reinvest into the squad.
But shoud Kenny have got the job when new owners come in teh first thing they have to do is replace an Anfield legend with their own man. That'd put some owners off, esp considering how vocal SoS are about fucking everything.
Roy is never gonna be a fans favourite so replacing him will be cheap & a lot less controversial.
Roy is never gonna be a fans favourite so replacing him will be cheap & a lot less controversial.
S
Squiggles
Guest
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=40759.msg1127896#msg1127896 date=1277754339]
It's plain to see that should Roy Hodgson be appointed Manager it is likely to further divide fans (going by this forum), especially if he's unsuccessfull early on.
I thought that Dalglish was the only name I've heard to date who can carry the crowd and the players with him and put us all in a better mood about the clubs management.
Dalglish would have the trust which I don't think Hodgson will enjoy. He seems an obvious choice for an interim Manager.
Does anyone feel that Hodgson will be a success? and if so what will that success look like?
[/quote]
It's hard to ascertain what success would be when we do not know what's going on with the squad - but getting into the Champions League and a good cup run and he'd be worthy of a very long pat on the back, and it would ensure a lot of people eat their own words.
It's plain to see that should Roy Hodgson be appointed Manager it is likely to further divide fans (going by this forum), especially if he's unsuccessfull early on.
I thought that Dalglish was the only name I've heard to date who can carry the crowd and the players with him and put us all in a better mood about the clubs management.
Dalglish would have the trust which I don't think Hodgson will enjoy. He seems an obvious choice for an interim Manager.
Does anyone feel that Hodgson will be a success? and if so what will that success look like?
[/quote]
It's hard to ascertain what success would be when we do not know what's going on with the squad - but getting into the Champions League and a good cup run and he'd be worthy of a very long pat on the back, and it would ensure a lot of people eat their own words.
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=40759.msg1127909#msg1127909 date=1277754875]
But shoud Kenny have got the job when new owners come in teh first thing they have to do is replace an Anfield legend with their own man. That'd put some owners off, esp considering how vocal SoS are about fucking everything.
Roy is never gonna be a fans favourite so replacing him will be cheap & a lot less controversial.
[/quote]
Yep, its rather a caretaker appointment in some ways, if it works out, that's fine. The question for both Hodgson and LFC negotiators is how long is the contract.
If Hodgson doesn't work out, and the owners that come in can't make significant investment, or the sale drags on, it's almost irrelevant, as we'd be fucked by that situation anyway.
It isn't a massive boost to morale by any means, but a couple decent results are the best tonic for that.
But shoud Kenny have got the job when new owners come in teh first thing they have to do is replace an Anfield legend with their own man. That'd put some owners off, esp considering how vocal SoS are about fucking everything.
Roy is never gonna be a fans favourite so replacing him will be cheap & a lot less controversial.
[/quote]
Yep, its rather a caretaker appointment in some ways, if it works out, that's fine. The question for both Hodgson and LFC negotiators is how long is the contract.
If Hodgson doesn't work out, and the owners that come in can't make significant investment, or the sale drags on, it's almost irrelevant, as we'd be fucked by that situation anyway.
It isn't a massive boost to morale by any means, but a couple decent results are the best tonic for that.
S
Squiggles
Guest
Hodgson works on rolling contracts.
So this big pay-off the Dalglish crew refer to is nonsense.
So this big pay-off the Dalglish crew refer to is nonsense.
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=40759.msg1127909#msg1127909 date=1277754875]
But shoud Kenny have got the job when new owners come in teh first thing they have to do is replace an Anfield legend with their own man. That'd put some owners off, esp considering how vocal SoS are about fucking everything.
Roy is never gonna be a fans favourite so replacing him will be cheap & a lot less controversial.
[/quote]
I think that new owners are going to be treated with such a sense of relief that the honeymoon period will allow them to make changes at will.
If they are bringing new money for players and stadium investment then very few would complain that they bring in whomever to spend it.
But shoud Kenny have got the job when new owners come in teh first thing they have to do is replace an Anfield legend with their own man. That'd put some owners off, esp considering how vocal SoS are about fucking everything.
Roy is never gonna be a fans favourite so replacing him will be cheap & a lot less controversial.
[/quote]
I think that new owners are going to be treated with such a sense of relief that the honeymoon period will allow them to make changes at will.
If they are bringing new money for players and stadium investment then very few would complain that they bring in whomever to spend it.
Jon, what you say would certainly be true if Kenny's appointment were on a permanent basis, but nobody - the man himself included - is suggesting that. His appointment would be specifically on an interim basis until the club has new owners, it being understood right from the start that he'd be replaced by the owners' preferred permanent appointment at that stage. They would factor that into their planning meanwhile, in order to be ready to hit the ground running when they got here.
I'd be surprised if he's on more than. 12 month rolling. That's what he's on at fulham I believe.
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=40759.msg1127917#msg1127917 date=1277755368]
Hodgson works on rolling contracts.
So this big pay-off the Dalglish crew refer to is nonsense.
[/quote]
How do you know he'll work on a rolling contract for this club, his agents would be retarded to do that.
Hodgson works on rolling contracts.
So this big pay-off the Dalglish crew refer to is nonsense.
[/quote]
How do you know he'll work on a rolling contract for this club, his agents would be retarded to do that.
Exactly. He doesn't have an ownership saga hanging over his head down there.
S
Squiggles
Guest
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=40759.msg1127922#msg1127922 date=1277755521]
I'd be surprised if he's on more than. 12 month rolling. That's what he's on at fulham I believe.
[/quote]
Yup
This is how most clubs should approach managerial appointments, IMO.
Fuck knows what The FA give out 4 and 5 year contracts. Lawenson was spot on; give the a 2 year deal, if they do well at the tournament then grant them another.
I'd be surprised if he's on more than. 12 month rolling. That's what he's on at fulham I believe.
[/quote]
Yup
This is how most clubs should approach managerial appointments, IMO.
Fuck knows what The FA give out 4 and 5 year contracts. Lawenson was spot on; give the a 2 year deal, if they do well at the tournament then grant them another.
S
Squiggles
Guest
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=40759.msg1127923#msg1127923 date=1277755553]
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=40759.msg1127917#msg1127917 date=1277755368]
Hodgson works on rolling contracts.
So this big pay-off the Dalglish crew refer to is nonsense.
[/quote]
How do you know he'll work on a rolling contract for this club, his agents would be retarded to do that.
[/quote]
If he's used to working on rolling contracts, I don't believe he's likely to demand a five year deal.
If it's not rolling, the club would do well not to offer any more than 2 years.
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=40759.msg1127917#msg1127917 date=1277755368]
Hodgson works on rolling contracts.
So this big pay-off the Dalglish crew refer to is nonsense.
[/quote]
How do you know he'll work on a rolling contract for this club, his agents would be retarded to do that.
[/quote]
If he's used to working on rolling contracts, I don't believe he's likely to demand a five year deal.
If it's not rolling, the club would do well not to offer any more than 2 years.
- Status
