Liverpool sack Rodgers

Chrissy\\\'s Army!! said:

I think his reputation means he could pretty much take any job in Europe.

Elthamaddick said:

Liverpool are a huge club and will also have an extra 10k seats next season when their new main stand opens, Klopp could be a good fit for them.

Garrymanilow said:

JohnBoyUK said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

Rodgers time at LFC:

Liverpool ,B 291mil. S 200mil. - 91m
Chelsea, B 391mil , S 323mil. - 68m
Man City. B 397mil , S 122 mil. -275m
Arsenal. B 200 mil. S. 85 mil. - 115m
Man Utd B 387 mil , S 124 mil - 263m

How do Spurs stack up?

As you've asked...

Last 5 seasons NET spend...

Liverpool £163m
Spurs -£37m

A small difference of £200m of investment in both squads...

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premier-league-last-five-seasons/transfer-league-tables/premier-league-table-last-five-seasons

Net spend is nonsense though. Just because you sold a player for £70m doesn't mean you magically didn't buy a player for £70m. I'm not getting involved in the debate about Liverpool and Tottenham's spending in either direction, but I don't think quoting net spend is a valid argument. Liverpool sold Torres for £50m but Andy Carroll for £35m was still an atrocious bit of spending. Gareth Bale was sold for something like £86m which was great business but was replaced with £26m Soldado, £30m Lamela, Capoue, Paulinho and Chiriches for whatever ridiculous amounts they were. Maybe Spurs' net spend there levelled out but it was money terribly spent. Net spend is like Tim Sherwood's win ratio at Tottenham; if you have to quote it, things probably didn't go that great

rikofold said:

Riviera said:

rikofold said:

I think Rodgers has been hard done by. Liverpool have progressed under him, and they're in transition having lost two irreplaceable world class players in first Suarez and then Gerrard. They needed to spend the Suarez money better, but by all accounts Rodgers was only part of a committee and didn't have the final say.

He also had Sturridge out on long term injury, twice. I think people need to remember the mess Liverpool were in before Rodgers took over. Whoever comes in now has a very different club to manage, but I think Rodgers deserved more time. He was a hair's breadth away from a title a year ago, for goodness sake - how unrealistic are their expectations?

The season before he arrived they reached two cup finals and won one of them.

They spent £120m that season under Dalglish, and he was sacked at the end of it for a reason. They finished 8th in the League, their lowest for 18 years, and the whole club needed rebuilding, which needed and still needs time.

The season they finished 2nd under Rodgers they overachieved in my view, and they did what many burgeoning title contenders did - they failed to get over the line when well-placed, lost key games at the wrong time, and that's down to sheer inexperience of winning. Since then he's seen his best player sold at the end of each season - first Suarez then Sterling - and Gerrard decided to effectively retire to the USA as well. This season was always going to be about transition, and that means inconsistent performances, and trying to gel new players. Players Rodgers didn't have the final say on buying, incidentally.

In Sturridge and Coutinho they had two match winners, but Sturridge is perpetually injured and Coutinho's a kid. I thought one mistake Rodgers did make was sticking by Mignolet, but there's nothing better behind him.

Clearly Rodgers also had to learn as he went along, it was a big job but my own view is that he made people think about Liverpool as a club capable of delivering a title again, which seemed a million miles away under Benitez, Hodgson and Dalglish. I think history may see him more kindly than our too-frequent short-termism.

Exiled_Addick said:

JohnBoyUK said:

So Klopp. 3 excellent seasons as a manager and 11 meh, pretty much.

In the PL, he's got 4 clubs financially on a par with Bayern Munich, not just the one to contend with.

I'm going early in that he'll be sacked before the end of his 3 year contract and they wont win a trophy.

I agree. I think Klopp's appointment is much like a lot of their transfer dealings. Superficially it seems like they have been signing big(ish) named, quality players, but scratch below the surface and there isn't as much pedigree as there maybe first seems.

I'll be honest, I don't know a massive amount about Klopp's background because I am primarily a follower of English football and I suspect the same goes for a an awful lot of fans and even more of the pundits lauding Klopp as Liverpool's messiah.

To me, the real gem of a manager who was available is Ancelotti and they should have gone al out for him first. Don't know if he'd have taken the job, but really if Liverpool genuinely aspire to get back to the glory days, then he is the level of manager they need, just like they needed to be going all out to keep players like Suarez or sign players like Sanchez (when he was available), not the likes of Ings.

Exiled_Addick said:

LoneRanger88 said:

Exiled_Addick said:

JohnBoyUK said:

So Klopp. 3 excellent seasons as a manager and 11 meh, pretty much.

In the PL, he's got 4 clubs financially on a par with Bayern Munich, not just the one to contend with.

I'm going early in that he'll be sacked before the end of his 3 year contract and they wont win a trophy.

I agree. I think Klopp's appointment is much like a lot of their transfer dealings. Superficially it seems like they have been signing big(ish) named, quality players, but scratch below the surface and there isn't as much pedigree as there maybe first seems.

I'll be honest, I don't know a massive amount about Klopp's background because I am primarily a follower of English football and I suspect the same goes for a an awful lot of fans and even more of the pundits lauding Klopp as Liverpool's messiah.

To me, the real gem of a manager who was available is Ancelotti and they should have gone al out for him first. Don't know if he'd have taken the job, but really if Liverpool genuinely aspire to get back to the glory days, then he is the level of manager they need, just like they needed to be going all out to keep players like Suarez or sign players like Sanchez (when he was available), not the likes of Ings.

They wanted to sign sanchez as part of the suarez deal but he rejected them

That may be true and fair, but what we don't know is what they offered him and how hard they really pursued him.

My point is, Rogers was expected to break into the top 4 but, particularly starting form the base that Liverpool were, that costs big big bucks to secure top quality players. Over the last few years they have lost the likes of Suarez, Gerrard and Alonso who have at various points been amongst the very best in the world in their position and they haven't come close to replacing any of them.

They are to an extent a more high profile version of what Roland is trying to do with us, but the reality is you are only going to get so far without pushing the boat out on one or two top drawer players,

Exiled_Addick said:

killerandflash said:

Exiled_Addick said:

LoneRanger88 said:

Exiled_Addick said:

JohnBoyUK said:

So Klopp. 3 excellent seasons as a manager and 11 meh, pretty much.

In the PL, he's got 4 clubs financially on a par with Bayern Munich, not just the one to contend with.

I'm going early in that he'll be sacked before the end of his 3 year contract and they wont win a trophy.

I agree. I think Klopp's appointment is much like a lot of their transfer dealings. Superficially it seems like they have been signing big(ish) named, quality players, but scratch below the surface and there isn't as much pedigree as there maybe first seems.

I'll be honest, I don't know a massive amount about Klopp's background because I am primarily a follower of English football and I suspect the same goes for a an awful lot of fans and even more of the pundits lauding Klopp as Liverpool's messiah.

To me, the real gem of a manager who was available is Ancelotti and they should have gone al out for him first. Don't know if he'd have taken the job, but really if Liverpool genuinely aspire to get back to the glory days, then he is the level of manager they need, just like they needed to be going all out to keep players like Suarez or sign players like Sanchez (when he was available), not the likes of Ings.

They wanted to sign sanchez as part of the suarez deal but he rejected them

That may be true and fair, but what we don't know is what they offered him and how hard they really pursued him.

My point is, Rogers was expected to break into the top 4 but, particularly starting form the base that Liverpool were, that costs big big bucks to secure top quality players. Over the last few years they have lost the likes of Suarez, Gerrard and Alonso who have at various points been amongst the very best in the world in their position and they haven't come close to replacing any of them.

They are to an extent a more high profile version of what Roland is trying to do with us, but the reality is you are only going to get so far without pushing the boat out on one or two top drawer players,

Liverpool and Spurs have both tried and failed to sign the big names, and as a result ended up buying overpriced quantity rather than a true replacement for Suarez and Bale.
Arsenal by contrast have managed to sign both Sanchez and Ozil, helped by
1) London
2) Wenger's style of football, signings know the team will play exciting, attacking football and hence attacking players will get plenty of chances to shine
3) Consistently qualifying for the Champions League

At a different level, it's the same problem newly promoted teams face in the Premier League, you may have cash to spend, but the top players won't want to join you.

City managed to do it though, but it costs huge amounts - not just in ransfer fees but its more about the wages you will pay.

I'm not criticising Liverpool for not paying it, but the reality is that its what is required to achieve their ambitions. If they can't/won't spend it then its not fair to blame the manager when he can't meet their goals.

Lincsaddick said:

Klippity Klopp for the Kop .. I'll give him a year .. of relative failure