Is Brendan Rogers position under threat ?

[Kopper]

That's true. When LvG's tenure hits the 3rd season without silverware then your point will be valid. Even more so given the fact we can guarantee he'd have spent a lot more by then.

The point still stands as it is. Manchester United got all their first choice targets and spent world class fees getting them. Liverpool can't afford to buy the finished article and has to spend money on promising talent.

Brendan's first season was spent clearing up the mess, Dalglish had left behind. The record books will say Rogers hasn't delivered a trophy in his first three seasons and might not do so in his fourth. But I consider him a success because of how he has got Liverpool to play good attacking football and realised the potential of Suarez, Sturridge, Coutinho, Sakho, Can, Sterling and Ibe. Before you interject about Suarez and Sturridge, I would say their profiles are far greater now than they were before they worked with Rogers.

LvG has been in the game a long time and knows football. In terms of resources he doesn't suffer in comparison with any of his competitors. He isn't starting out with a club who pay the fifth highest wages in the league and can't compete at the high end of the transfer market.
All things considered Roger's three years are comparable with LvG first year at Utd.

p.s. I don't want us to bankrupt ourselves living the dream. I would rather wait for genuine success with the resources we have.

 

[Nilsson]

All things considered Roger's three years are comparable with LvG first year at Utd.

lol

 

[thespus]

p.s. I don't want us to bankrupt ourselves living the dream. I would rather wait for genuine success with the resources we have.

Arsenal aren't bankrupt, have used their own resources, and are favoured to win their second trophy in two seasons in addition to their best two league campaigns in succession for a decade. It speaks to the success Wenger has had in his pragmatic business approach and in the transfer market relative to Rodgers. Sure, the inorganic rises of Chelsea and City have made things much more difficult for the traditional big three, but it's not by accident that Arsenal are in a better position moving forward.

"Waiting for genuine success with the resources we have" is not an excuse for Rodgers. I enjoy seeing (some) Liverpool fans happy with Rodgers that laugh at Arsenal for persisting with Wenger. In which alternate universe is Rodgers near the manager that Wenger is?

 

[smat]

Question is, are Liverpool going in the right direction, and if so are they moving quickly enough? Hard to answer tbh. 7th to 2nd to possibly 5th doesn't look much like progress, but is he a victim of his own (nearly) success last season? To me, the squad doesn't look in great shape really, nowhere near one worthy of winning trophies, and they've made a lot of bad buys. Rodgers' future might hinge on whether FSG holds him or the transfer committee responsible for that.

 

[G.B]

The point still stands as it is. Manchester United got all their first choice targets and spent world class fees getting them. Liverpool can't afford to buy the finished article and has to spend money on promising talent.

Liverpool can afford the finished article, as indicated by their crazy transfer spend over the last few years. They just can't attract them to the club, or they prefer buying up poorer players for some reason. I reckon it's the former. You spent £75mil on Markovic, Lallana, Lovren and Origi recently. £75mil would buy you a pretty decent player I reckon, maybe even two. If you were of a higher profile like Arsenal you could probably get genuine top class players like... I dunno... Ozil and Sanchez for that money.

24 players for £211mil in 3 years. Aye, skint you lot.

 

[Kopper]

Liverpool can afford the finished article, as indicated by their crazy transfer spend over the last few years. They just can't attract them to the club, or they prefer buying up poorer players for some reason. I reckon it's the former. You spent £75mil on Markovic, Lallana, Lovren and Origi recently. £75mil would buy you a pretty decent player I reckon, maybe even two. If you were of a higher profile like Arsenal you could probably get genuine top class players like... I dunno... Ozil and Sanchez for that money.

24 players for £211mil in 3 years. Aye, skint you lot.

A lot of lazy responses. 24 players for £211m, but Manchester United could spend that on 7 players and afford to pay them the salary that comes with the price tag. Liverpool aren't poor but they aren't in the elite bracket in terms of financial revenue.
£211m minus the £75m we got for Suarez and Liverpool have a net spend of £136m over 3 years. Which equates to £45.3m a season. A lot for most clubs, but nothing when compared with City, Utd and Chelsea. Arsenal are financially better off than us, but not quite in the same company as the aforementioned clubs. Wenger is the sole reason Arsenal enjoys it's lofty position. Should he leave (like so many Arsenal fans want), I suspect Arsenal will have a reversal in fortunes. At least for a while.

 

[G.B]

Is lazy a slang term for 'accurate' nowadays?

What is it that's stopping you from spending that money on better players like Man Yoo? Are we pretending you don't pay incredibley high wages like the rest of them or summit? How much does the awful Glenn Johnson earn mate? What's stopping you is you simply can't attract that standard of footballer to your club, nor keep players who prove to be that standard of footballer at your club. It has little to do with money, and everything to do with there being 4 more successfull clubs in the division who are far more attractive to top class players. If you're honest, nobody is going to choose Liverpool over Chelsea, City, Man Yoo or Arsenal, are they? And so you end up with the Carroll's and Lallana's of this world, the players the better clubs don't want.

 

[smat]

Also there's no reason Liverpool couldn't have made some of Arsenal's successful signings. If we look at signings made during Rodgers' tenure, Cazorla was about £16m, Giroud was £15m, Monreal £9m, Ospina £3m. Arsenal were in the Champions League for all three years of Rodgers' spell at Liverpool, but he had that bait last summer and he/they spent £25m on Lallana, £20m on Markovic, £16m on Balotelli and £20m on Lovren. There must have been better players out there at better prices. They really blew it.

 

[thespus]

Yeah, a lot of this sounds more like excuses for Brendan Rodgers (or the committee for those who don't think Rodgers has a say in transfers) failures in the transfer market. Arsene Wenger managed to keep Arsenal in the top four for a decade with significantly less money to spend than Rodgers has at his disposal now.

Look at the compositions of Arsenal and Liverpool's squads. Yes, Alexis and Özil probably weren't transfers Rodgers could have pulled off, but if you remove the two most expensive Liverpool players (Henderson and Lovren?) and those two from the equation, Liverpool have a more expensive squad than Arsenal. Rodgers' first summer with Liverpool compared to the summer Wenger had is quite telling. Santi Cazorla moved for £15m and Olivier Giroud for £12m. Who did Rodgers buy that summer? Joe Allen for £15m and Fabio Borini for £10.5m. Did Liverpool have the £1.5m difference? Of course. Obviously this is one example, but I think blaming it entirely on financial power is disingenuous. Arsenal have only very recently pulled ahead of Liverpool in financial muscle.

 

[smat]

we should really crossreference our fees before we post

 

[thespus]

I'll bring that up at our next prawn sandwich meeting. (Mine were sourced at Wikipedia, so clearly you have some editing to do.)

 

[Stevencc]

Over to you, Kopper...

 

[Bilo]

Sorry guys had lots of work. Many great opinions in here I think, lots of valid points, will get back to you of course.

Take care now.

 

[thespus]

"If Lucas Leiva had been fit...more important than Suarez..."

 

[allouso]

Also there's no reason Liverpool couldn't have made some of Arsenal's successful signings. If we look at signings made during Rodgers' tenure, Cazorla was about £16m, Giroud was £15m, Monreal £9m, Ospina £3m. Arsenal were in the Champions League for all three years of Rodgers' spell at Liverpool, but he had that bait last summer and he/they spent £25m on Lallana, £20m on Markovic, £16m on Balotelli and £20m on Lovren. There must have been better players out there at better prices. They really blew it.

That's the biggest issue really, and it's the main reason why Liverpool have failed to get back to that elite for the last 2 decades. We NEVER back up a good season with a proper transfer window, and we always end up struggling because of that. Unfortunately, that doesn't look like it's gonna change anytime soon.

On the other hand, we need to understand that we are not as attractive a club as United, City, Arsenal and Chelsea. We won't be able to attract top players, even if we're in the CL; i mean we were barely able to do it under Rafa when we were one of the best in Europe so i don't see that changing anytime soon, especially that we aren't likely to challenge in Europe even if we qualify since the overall quality of the league has decreased. Our biggest chance is to pull off great transfers like Torres, Suarez, Alonso, Mascherano etc, all players that had huge potential but weren't established and build the team around them. Unfortunately, that means they will end up leaving in a couple of years whether we end up winning or not, and identifying these sorts of players in the first place is extremely challenging in itself, not many managers can do it. It's a difficult situation to be in, and i'm not really sure Rodgers or any manager that isn't a top class one can fix it. The money is there and i'm sure we can pay big wages although not City-esque, it's just that big players aren't interested in us, it's the harsh truth.

Rodgers has loads of qualities but he has many weaknesses as well which make me unsure about him. His inability to deal with high pressure games is my main concern, and our away record in big games absolutely stinks, not to mention his transfer failings. I'd give him one more year unless Klopp somehow wants the job, which i really doubt. I just really don't want to see us go in another one of these "transition" periods.

 

[Kopper]

Is lazy a slang term for 'accurate' nowadays?

What is it that's stopping you from spending that money on better players like Man Yoo? Are we pretending you don't pay incredibley high wages like the rest of them or summit? How much does the awful Glenn Johnson earn mate? What's stopping you is you simply can't attract that standard of footballer to your club, nor keep players who prove to be that standard of footballer at your club. It has little to do with money, and everything to do with there being 4 more successfull clubs in the division who are far more attractive to top class players. If you're honest, nobody is going to choose Liverpool over Chelsea, City, Man Yoo or Arsenal, are they? And so you end up with the Carroll's and Lallana's of this world, the players the better clubs don't want.

Glenn Johnson got his contract under a different regime. The current owners have to honour his contract.

Let's see if I've got this straight. Money has little to do with, but in the same sentence you say there are four more successful clubs in the division. Pray tell, how did these clubs become so successful?
Hasn't Abramovich spent over £2bn on Chelsea since his arrival 11 years ago?
Hasn't Sheikh Mansour spent £1.2bn on Man City since 2008?
Are you insinuating there is no correlation between these vast sums of money and the success of those teams?

G.B. I think you're a little confused about the world we live in. World class players are attracted by world class salaries. Chelsea, City, Man U and Arsenal (to an extent) provide those salaries. Liverpool, Spurs and anyone outside the current top 4, don't. Liverpool's highest earner is probably on £150k a week. Man United's highest earner (Rooney) is on £300k a week. Falcao is reportedly on £280k a week and you can bet your bottom dollar Mata, Di Maria and RvP aren't far behind.

No coveted player with his pick of clubs is going to choose Liverpool. Because (simply put) they can't pay those wages.

In my earlier post I said Liverpool had to buy potential because they couldn't afford world class talent. Lallana is a player with potential. But because he's a known quantity and English to boot, we had to pay a premium for him. None of the elite clubs were looking at Lallana (therefore he can't be described as someone they didn't want) because he isn't the finished product.

p.s. lazy is ignoring all the facts, because it gets in the way of you having a little dig at Liverpool.

 

[Bilo]

"If Lucas Leiva had been fit...more important than Suarez..."

Those two thingys imply that you're quoting someone but I can't think of anyone. Enlighten me!

 

[Who Needs Mourinho]

The point still stands as it is. Manchester United got all their first choice targets and spent world class fees getting them. Liverpool can't afford to buy the finished article and has to spend money on promising talent.

Brendan's first season was spent clearing up the mess, Dalglish had left behind. The record books will say Rogers hasn't delivered a trophy in his first three seasons and might not do so in his fourth. But I consider him a success because of how he has got Liverpool to play good attacking football and realised the potential of Suarez, Sturridge, Coutinho, Sakho, Can, Sterling and Ibe. Before you interject about Suarez and Sturridge, I would say their profiles are far greater now than they were before they worked with Rogers.

LvG has been in the game a long time and knows football. In terms of resources he doesn't suffer in comparison with any of his competitors. He isn't starting out with a club who pay the fifth highest wages in the league and can't compete at the high end of the transfer market.
All things considered Roger's three years are comparable with LvG first year at Utd.

p.s. I don't want us to bankrupt ourselves living the dream. I would rather wait for genuine success with the resources we have.

Your point pretty much becomes null and void when you don't know what your own manager is called.

 

[smat]

Lallana is a player with potential. But because he's a known quantity and English to boot, we had to pay a premium for him. None of the elite clubs were looking at Lallana (therefore he can't be described as someone they didn't want) because he isn't the finished product.

If Lallana has potential he'd better start fulfilling it sharpish. He's 26.

 

[Kopper]

Your point pretty much becomes null and void when you don't know what your own manager is called.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger

Roger (sometimes spelled Rodger) is an English surname of Anglo-Saxon origin.[1] The name Roger is derived from the pre-7th century Anglo-Saxon (Teutonic) name Hroðgar, which means 'fame and spear' ('hroð' fame or renown, 'gar' spear), the first reference to which is in Beowulf, the epic poem of the Dark Ages.

Does this help you?

 

[thespus]

Those two thingys imply that you're quoting someone but I can't think of anyone. Enlighten me!

They imply they were my (joking) speculation about your response.

 

[G-Dragon]

Why are Arsenal fans comparing Wenger with Rodgers? Of course he will come up short. Compare Wenger with the likes of Ferguson, or even Mourinho and Guardiola.

 

[thespus]

Kopper was making out bullshit excuses for Brendan Rodgers' failures, claiming that it's Liverpool's lack of investment compared to the current top four, and Smat and myself exposed this as rubbish.

(genuine question) How much better off are Liverpool now than the day Rodgers took over? Enough to pass on a chance at Jurgen Klopp who has won more, and made a CL final (beating Mourinho's Madrid to boot) with far fewer resources?

 

[Who Needs Mourinho]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger



Does this help you?

Nope but reading the first line should probably help you

 

[G-Dragon]

Kopper was making out bullshit excuses for Brendan Rodgers' failures, claiming that it's Liverpool's lack of investment compared to the current top four, and Smat and myself exposed this as rubbish.

(genuine question) How much better off are Liverpool now than the day Rodgers took over? Enough to pass on a chance at Jurgen Klopp who has won more, and made a CL final (beating Mourinho's Madrid to boot) with far fewer resources?

Lack of investment, I don't agree with it either. It is because he is new/young manager he can't attract top players. With that kind of money, if it was Klopp or Benitez they would have brought some top class players.

I think we are in a better place than when Rodgers took over, taking into account he lost an irreplaceable player. Replacing Rodgers with Klopp (if he wants to come to Liverpool) will be harsh on Rodgers but there is no guarantee Klopp would be success either. Then again if the owners do decide to sack Rodgers, then there aren't any better option than Klopp. I personally would like to keep Rodgers for next season.

 

[G.B]

Glenn Johnson got his contract under a different regime. The current owners have to honour his contract.

Let's see if I've got this straight. Money has little to do with, but in the same sentence you say there are four more successful clubs in the division. Pray tell, how did these clubs become so successful?
Hasn't Abramovich spent over £2bn on Chelsea since his arrival 11 years ago?
Hasn't Sheikh Mansour spent £1.2bn on Man City since 2008?
Are you insinuating there is no correlation between these vast sums of money and the success of those teams?

G.B. I think you're a little confused about the world we live in. World class players are attracted by world class salaries. Chelsea, City, Man U and Arsenal (to an extent) provide those salaries. Liverpool, Spurs and anyone outside the current top 4, don't. Liverpool's highest earner is probably on £150k a week. Man United's highest earner (Rooney) is on £300k a week. Falcao is reportedly on £280k a week and you can bet your bottom dollar Mata, Di Maria and RvP aren't far behind.

No coveted player with his pick of clubs is going to choose Liverpool. Because (simply put) they can't pay those wages.

In my earlier post I said Liverpool had to buy potential because they couldn't afford world class talent. Lallana is a player with potential. But because he's a known quantity and English to boot, we had to pay a premium for him. None of the elite clubs were looking at Lallana (therefore he can't be described as someone they didn't want) because he isn't the finished product.

p.s. lazy is ignoring all the facts, because it gets in the way of you having a little dig at Liverpool.

You paid Suarez £200k+ per week mate, pull the other one. You don't pay "world class salaries" because you can't attract world class players who justify those salaries. You have a washed up 35 year old still earning £150k per week but you expect me to believe you can't afford to pay top class players the money they deserve? The few times you've been able to attract a high profile player, you've had no problems finding the money to pay him. They just don't hang around for too long at Liverpool, do they? If you add up all the wages of the flops Rodgers has signed, how many top class players do you think you could pay? Lovren, Balotelli and Lallana just from this summer... there's over £250k a week straight away (and £71mil in transfer fee's). Again, money isn't the issue.

None of the elite clubs were looking at Lallana because they didn't want him, but he can't be described as someone they didn't want because.... reasons? Ok fella.

 

[SALTIRE]

That's the biggest issue really, and it's the main reason why Liverpool have failed to get back to that elite for the last 2 decades. We NEVER back up a good season with a proper transfer window, and we always end up struggling because of that. Unfortunately, that doesn't look like it's gonna change anytime soon.

On the other hand, we need to understand that we are not as attractive a club as United, City, Arsenal and Chelsea. We won't be able to attract top players, even if we're in the CL; i mean we were barely able to do it under Rafa when we were one of the best in Europe so i don't see that changing anytime soon, especially that we aren't likely to challenge in Europe even if we qualify since the overall quality of the league has decreased. Our biggest chance is to pull off great transfers like Torres, Suarez, Alonso, Mascherano etc, all players that had huge potential but weren't established and build the team around them. Unfortunately, that means they will end up leaving in a couple of years whether we end up winning or not, and identifying these sorts of players in the first place is extremely challenging in itself, not many managers can do it. It's a difficult situation to be in, and i'm not really sure Rodgers or any manager that isn't a top class one can fix it. The money is there and i'm sure we can pay big wages although not City-esque, it's just that big players aren't interested in us, it's the harsh truth.

Rodgers has loads of qualities but he has many weaknesses as well which make me unsure about him. His inability to deal with high pressure games is my main concern, and our away record in big games absolutely stinks, not to mention his transfer failings. I'd give him one more year unless Klopp somehow wants the job, which i really doubt. I just really don't want to see us go in another one of these "transition" periods.

Good post Allouso and sentiments I agree with completely, and have been also saying all along about Liverpool's attractiveness in the market, the sad reality is the other four clubs have dibs first on the big players coming in in England and then if the player doesn't like the deals, he'll go to another country ahead of Liverpool. Thats why they end up signing players with promise and potential, over proven class acts. Rodgers went to see Pjancic earlier in the season too as he really wants him; there is next to no chance of him heading to Anfield even if the miracle does happen and they scrape into the top four come season end.

 

[Jarv]

There's No-one better for Liverpool apparently http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32437970

 

[Kopper]

Lack of investment, I don't agree with it either. It is because he is new/young manager he can't attract top players. With that kind of money, if it was Klopp or Benitez they would have brought some top class players.

I think we are in a better place than when Rodgers took over, taking into account he lost an irreplaceable player. Replacing Rodgers with Klopp (if he wants to come to Liverpool) will be harsh on Rodgers but there is no guarantee Klopp would be success either. Then again if the owners do decide to sack Rodgers, then there aren't any better option than Klopp. I personally would like to keep Rodgers for next season.

The two times we spent big we did so off the back of striker sales. First under Kenny, with Torres being the player sold and next with Suarez. We can't invest that type of money without a transfer fee of that size to bankroll it.

I would rather we didn't have a manager than to have Benitez back.

 

[Stocky]

There's No-one better for Liverpool apparently http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32437970

He's absolutely spot on in all he says there.