I would love to know what people are basing the idea on that if Rodgers doesn't hit the ground running, his job could be in threat.
There's literally nothing whatsoever to suggest that FSG even for one moment considered sacking him.
I think he's got much more breathing room than any of us think. We all think that if he doesn't get a trophy, or doesn't get top four, or this or that, then.... something.
I think the reality is that FSG like having a yes-man in charge. And it's been well documented that Rodgers has a very good relationship with Mike Gordon, who apparently runs the club single-handedly.
Seems to me like Rodgers has charmed both Gordon and FSG, neither of whom really know anything about football. They like him, he's "their guy," and he would have to do something really drastic like get us in the relegation zone for them to even think of getting rid of him.
Our own standards---that he needs to get top four, needs to win a trophy, blah blah blah---those are just what they are, our own standards as supporters of one of the most successful clubs in world football.
But it would be a mistake to assume that FSG share that viewpoint. That they didn't care that we lost 6-1 to Stoke just shows that they're not really arsed about the traditions of the club and its importance. We're all shocked because *we* think it's not good enough not to get into the top four after spending all that money in 2014, *we* think it's not good enough to get trounced by Villa in a semi-final, to get destroyed by Stoke and not even think about making a change until after half time, to lose all our important games, etc etc. *We* think that those are sackable offences, so we just assume that FSG thinks that too.
I don't think they do. I think their measure of what is "too far" is much farther than our own.
Those thinking Brendan's position is under any kind of threat are living in a fantasy world. FSG have no intention of getting rid of Rodgers. In fact I would be very surprised if he's under any real pressure at all.
Logged