Brendan Rodgers (Liverpool -> Celtic -> Leicester)

Shankly didn't win a title or trophy for six years. People on this forum and the media would be calling for his head after that length of time and he'd have been sacked long before we got to our third title.

Very true, Shanks built his legacy from practically 0, promoted from div 2, to being div 1 champions.

And there is taggart who never won anything for 5 seasons either at the mankys.

Different world and game now, BR is doing well getting 3 years, let alone 4, but I for 1 think that is a good thing, sacking managers every few years or less does not really help IMO. unless you can spend 200-300 mill every time.

Are you illiterate? Once and for all, read and learn. This is the transfer structure as laid out by Ian Ayre in an interview with the Telegraph in 2013:

Liverpool transfers to be decided by committee, not Brendan Rodgers, claims Ian Ayre

Liverpool’s managing director, Ian Ayre, says all the club’s future transfers will be decided by committee rather than Brendan Rodgers being allowed full control of recruitment.




Ayre has offered an insight into a Liverpool transfer policy which, although no longer employing a director of football, places Rodgers as part of a recruitment team rather than accepting the traditional managerial authority to buy and sell.

Since Rodgers joined the club, Dave Fallows has joined as head of recruitment and Barry Hunter as chief scout from Manchester City, while head of analysis Michael Edwards has become a central figure in assessing targets for owners Fenway Sports Group.

Ayre said he, Rodgers, Edwards and Fallows effectively created the director of football model between them.

“We have a head of analysis, a head of recruitment, a first-team manager, myself,” Ayre said. “All of those people are all inputting into a process that delivers what a director of football would deliver.

“What we believe, and we continue to follow, is you need many people involved in the process. That doesn’t mean somebody else is picking the team for Brendan but Brendan needs to set out with his team of people which positions we want to fill and what the key targets would be for that.

"He has a team of people that go out and do an inordinate amount of analysis work to establish who are the best players in that position.

“Despite what people think and read, it’s not a whole bunch of guys sitting behind a computer working out who we should buy. It’s a combination of old-school scouting and watching players – and that’s Brendan, his assistants, our scouts – with statistical analysis of players across Europe and the rest of the world.

"By bringing those two processes together you get a much more educated view of who you should and shouldn’t be buying and, perhaps as fundamentally, how much you should be paying and the structure to those contracts.

“I think we’ve had relatively good success since we deployed that ­methodology. We’re getting better all the time. We were very pleased with the most recent window in January with Philippe Coutinho and Daniel Sturridge.”

Although the current model is one FSG has always favoured, there is a noticeable shift from last summer when Rodgers made it known that he would not work for a director of football, and any recruitment team around him would be “underpinning” his work.

“It’s absolute madness if you are the manager of the club and someone else tells you to have that player,” he said last July. “It doesn’t work.”

At the same time, Ayre made it known that the aspiration was to have a more collaborative approach and his latest comments, published in an interview with Sports Illustrated, demonstrate how firmly established that now is, inevitably impacting on who Rodgers pursues this summer.

FSG have been determined to be stricter on spending since being wounded by former director of football Damien Comolli’s £110 million spending spree in their first year.

Liverpool were the target of some ridicule when they appointed Comolli on the strength of his relationship with baseball guru Billy Beane. It led to an association with the Moneyball theory successfully applied in baseball.

Although an actor played the part of Liverpool’s principal owner John W Henry in the movie of the same name, Ayre disassociates Liverpool from Moneyball.

“I don’t think there was ever anyone at Liverpool using the word Moneyball, but plenty of other people were using it. It’s not a Moneyball strategy.

“I think that director of football role in a lot of cases almost creates as many problems as it solves because people try to judge where the power base is with that role. Who’s picking the team? Who’s deciding which players? What we actually have is probably three or four people who all are involved in that role.”

Meanwhile, Liverpool’s determination to ensure Luis Suárez is given a prolonged summer break could see him sit out the club’s summer tour of Australia and the Far East.

Suárez will join Uruguay for the Confederations Cup in Brazil in June. “If he is playing in that tournament he may not be back at the start of pre-season for us because he needs to have a recovery period,” Rodgers said.

It's there in black and white. Rodgers' decides the position, statistical analysis is conducted, narrowing the potentials, scouting work is done and Rodgers' decides if the player is one he wants in. As TAW put it last week, this is a Directorate of Football and is not how normal clubs work.

This is the recruitment policy, as laid out by Ian Ayre on March 3rd 2015 in the IBT Times

Liverpool will continue to pursue young players in transfer market says Ian Ayre

Liverpool chief executive Ian Ayre has indicated the club's continued ambitions to improve their financial standing will see them favour signing young players over marquee additions during the transfer window.

The Reds's annual accounts to 31 May 2014 showed a £0.9m ($1.4m) profit – the first for seven years and under owner Fenway Sports Group – after seeing revenue bolstered by 19% to £255.6m due to an improvement in media income.

Debt remains at £69m but has been significantly reduced from when FSG first took over Liverpool in October 2010, with the club having risen to ninth in Deloitte's Money League, while they also returned to the Champions League this season.

Investment in the Liverpool squad has been key to the club's progression on the field, while a handful of academy players have been handed professional contracts to continue the club's long tradition of blooding young players.

Though Liverpool spent £117m during the 2014 summer window as they brought in nine new players, Ayre says as the club look to improve their financial position they may look to cease making significant outlays on transfers and instead look to the future.

Investment in youth to continue

"When we talk about a financial prudency and managing the football club in the best way we can with what we have got, then that does mean investing in younger players some of the time that will cost less money to buy but give us better long-term value," he told the Liverpool Echo.

Brendan Rodgers
Brendan Rodgers will likely be focusing on young additions rather than marquee signings in the summer(Getty)

"We can't compete with some people who seem to have deeper pockets. But if you go about it the right way - and get the right result - then we can still be successful."

He added: "When we say it's about success on and off the pitch, it really is about everybody doing their piece. And these results start to show that that is working. We'd always expect to improve and I think I'd be confident in saying that we'll improve our position in this current year.

"But it is about each individual part and as we saw last year when we didn't have European revenue, which these results today reflect, those years are much tougher. We have to build our business on the basis that that may or may not be there in any particular season. And when it is there, it is a bonus, if you like.

"What is important to say is that when we get that additional revenue, be it from Champions League, Europa League or from finishing in different positions, the one thing about this ownership group is that they have never taken a single penny out of the football club.

"So it all goes back into the team or the club. We have been very fortunate to enjoy those additional revenue streams this year - but it goes straight back into the pot. It is all going in the same place. Brendan, myself, the owners - everyone wants to achieve as much as they can achieve and it will be reinvested."

Here he clearly reiterates the policy is to bring in and develop youth 'potential' who FSG see as providing 'better long term value'. He also says "We can't compete with some people who seem to have deeper pockets" yet Tom Werner said the following in 2012 after the sacking of Damien Comolli in an interview with the official website.

Tom Werner on Comolli decision

Following the announcement that Damien Comolli has left the club, Liverpoolfc.tv spoke to the Reds chairman Tom Werner.
 
Tom, the news this morning that Damien Comolli is leaving the club will have come as a surprise to many fans. Can you explain why the decision was taken?

I think it's fair to say no supporter would be delighted with the results we've achieved this year. We feel we are a club that needs to be perceived as the strongest club in football and we want to get there. Frankly, we make these decisions with a great deal of care because it's our track record in Boston to give people authority and we've had great success with our manager, who was there for eight years, and our general manager, so we prefer stability. But when it's time to act, we need to act. We're coming close to the end of the season and the transfer window for the summer, and we felt it was important to make this change expeditiously.

In light of Damien's departure, do you still think there is a need for a director of football at this club?

We're still confident the structure we've discussed is the right structure. That doesn't mean we won't look at tweaking it, but we feel a collective group of people making football decisions is healthy. The debate is healthy. Part of the reason we made this decision now is because we want to start the process of finding an excellent replacement.

Do you have a candidate in mind for the role?

We don't have any specific candidates in mind. Part of the reason we made this decision yesterday was to be in the best possible position to move forward as quickly as possible.

Is Damien's departure a reflection that the ownership group were unhappy with the return on player investment?

I would say we certainly have the resources to compete with anybody in football. I wouldn't want to get specific about any particular decision that's been made. We feel there is enough talent on the pitch to win and, as I said, we've been dissatisfied, as most supporters have been, with the results so far. But we're also talking about the future - we have a strategy we need implemented and we felt Damien was probably not the right person to implement that strategy.

Does Damien Comolli's departure have any impact upon Kenny Dalglish's position as manager?

Absolutely not. We've got great confidence in Kenny. We feel the team is going to make strides in the future and he enjoys our full support.

Do you envisage any other changes in the senior management of the club?

We do not. It's a good question. We believe the senior management is very strong, Ian Ayre is an outstanding managing director. His charge is to raise revenue so that we can put the resources into strengthening our football club. We've got great confidence in the other people in football operations, and so the answer is there will be no future changes of significance.

In terms of transfer activity this summer, will Damien's departure affect plans that are already underway?

We've had a strategy that we have agreed on. There was some disconnect on the implementation of that. That strategy is a strong one and it will continue. We need to build a strong system under the first team. We're hard at work identifying transfer targets and we will be better next year.

Finally, as chairman of Liverpool Football Club, do you have a message for the supporters ahead of the very important game on Saturday?

We're all excited about this match. We certainly feel the team is healthy and the team is committed. We just attended a practice where they are excited about returning to Wembley. There's only one team in England that has the possibility of winning this cup and the Carling Cup, and I think our supporters around the world should feel very confident.

The key point being in italics. "I would say we certainly have the resources to compete with anybody in football" yet you have Ian Ayre saying "We can't compete with some people who seem to have deeper pockets". So which is it? We can compete or we can't compete?

Nonetheless, there you have it. Brendan Rodgers works as part of a Directorate of Football, he does not have sole say on players, he works to a policy that everyone who knows anything about football, from fans to pundits, know that it simply does not work on its own, with a board that can simultaneously both compete and not compete with anyone else in the league and if anyone thinks anyone else coming in to the club will do any better with this mess then you're sadly deluded. Given the amount of confusion at the business end and the fact he's working within tight constraints, and has lost both his top strikers this season and brought in a defender who no one thought would under perform to the extent he has, I think we're doing rather well in 5th place.

Right.
Analysis, recommendations and scouting work. Thats what that article says.
All managers have this. Tell me where it said they TELL him who to sign. All managers have this, they just do not call it  a commitee.How many managers decide wagers and transfer price's ?
How many do their own scouting? How many tell the club "i dont care how much you have to pay , i want that player "

Tell me again where it says we TELL him who to sign.

If you're attempting to see the similarities with theirs/our situation I don't think there are many parallels as I believe our decisions are more through choice than circumstance.

Sorry for being late in getting back to you Luke - I've been up to my eyes. The truth is I'm not "attempting" anything; the similarities and parallels are clear and there for all to see: maybe you're just not looking in the same direction.

It's all about the end result [impact on the team] mate and as far as that goes there is absolutely no difference between "can't" and "won't": neither has an 'advantage' over the other.

That is: Luke Klopp and Bubby Rodgers are out for a dander. Both could kill a nice, cold, pint. They see a pub; the only one for miles. They call in only to find the pints are six, F***ing, quid a piece. Luke Klopp can't pay - Bubby Rodgers won't pay - the end result?

No pints for either. 

Can't see all the fuss really, the commitee is analagous with the bootroom and although more stats and information are available nowadays, Shanks like to set base lines for players, scouting them in tough away fixtures, preferably in bad conditions.  I'd harbour some of the notes taken by scouts back in the day contained statistical analysis as well, even if it wasn't called that.

Are you illiterate? Once and for all, read and learn. This is the transfer structure as laid out by Ian Ayre in an interview with the Telegraph in 2013:

Liverpool transfers to be decided by committee, not Brendan Rodgers, claims Ian Ayre

Liverpool’s managing director, Ian Ayre, says all the club’s future transfers will be decided by committee rather than Brendan Rodgers being allowed full control of recruitment.




Ayre has offered an insight into a Liverpool transfer policy which, although no longer employing a director of football, places Rodgers as part of a recruitment team rather than accepting the traditional managerial authority to buy and sell.

Since Rodgers joined the club, Dave Fallows has joined as head of recruitment and Barry Hunter as chief scout from Manchester City, while head of analysis Michael Edwards has become a central figure in assessing targets for owners Fenway Sports Group.

Ayre said he, Rodgers, Edwards and Fallows effectively created the director of football model between them.

“We have a head of analysis, a head of recruitment, a first-team manager, myself,” Ayre said. “All of those people are all inputting into a process that delivers what a director of football would deliver.

“What we believe, and we continue to follow, is you need many people involved in the process. That doesn’t mean somebody else is picking the team for Brendan but Brendan needs to set out with his team of people which positions we want to fill and what the key targets would be for that.

"He has a team of people that go out and do an inordinate amount of analysis work to establish who are the best players in that position.

“Despite what people think and read, it’s not a whole bunch of guys sitting behind a computer working out who we should buy. It’s a combination of old-school scouting and watching players – and that’s Brendan, his assistants, our scouts – with statistical analysis of players across Europe and the rest of the world.

"By bringing those two processes together you get a much more educated view of who you should and shouldn’t be buying and, perhaps as fundamentally, how much you should be paying and the structure to those contracts.

“I think we’ve had relatively good success since we deployed that ­methodology. We’re getting better all the time. We were very pleased with the most recent window in January with Philippe Coutinho and Daniel Sturridge.”

Although the current model is one FSG has always favoured, there is a noticeable shift from last summer when Rodgers made it known that he would not work for a director of football, and any recruitment team around him would be “underpinning” his work.

“It’s absolute madness if you are the manager of the club and someone else tells you to have that player,” he said last July. “It doesn’t work.”

At the same time, Ayre made it known that the aspiration was to have a more collaborative approach and his latest comments, published in an interview with Sports Illustrated, demonstrate how firmly established that now is, inevitably impacting on who Rodgers pursues this summer.

FSG have been determined to be stricter on spending since being wounded by former director of football Damien Comolli’s £110 million spending spree in their first year.

Liverpool were the target of some ridicule when they appointed Comolli on the strength of his relationship with baseball guru Billy Beane. It led to an association with the Moneyball theory successfully applied in baseball.

Although an actor played the part of Liverpool’s principal owner John W Henry in the movie of the same name, Ayre disassociates Liverpool from Moneyball.

“I don’t think there was ever anyone at Liverpool using the word Moneyball, but plenty of other people were using it. It’s not a Moneyball strategy.

“I think that director of football role in a lot of cases almost creates as many problems as it solves because people try to judge where the power base is with that role. Who’s picking the team? Who’s deciding which players? What we actually have is probably three or four people who all are involved in that role.”

Meanwhile, Liverpool’s determination to ensure Luis Suárez is given a prolonged summer break could see him sit out the club’s summer tour of Australia and the Far East.

Suárez will join Uruguay for the Confederations Cup in Brazil in June. “If he is playing in that tournament he may not be back at the start of pre-season for us because he needs to have a recovery period,” Rodgers said.

It's there in black and white. Rodgers' decides the position, statistical analysis is conducted, narrowing the potentials, scouting work is done and Rodgers' decides if the player is one he wants in. As TAW put it last week, this is a Directorate of Football and is not how normal clubs work.

This is the recruitment policy, as laid out by Ian Ayre on March 3rd 2015 in the IBT Times

Liverpool will continue to pursue young players in transfer market says Ian Ayre

Liverpool chief executive Ian Ayre has indicated the club's continued ambitions to improve their financial standing will see them favour signing young players over marquee additions during the transfer window.

The Reds's annual accounts to 31 May 2014 showed a £0.9m ($1.4m) profit – the first for seven years and under owner Fenway Sports Group – after seeing revenue bolstered by 19% to £255.6m due to an improvement in media income.

Debt remains at £69m but has been significantly reduced from when FSG first took over Liverpool in October 2010, with the club having risen to ninth in Deloitte's Money League, while they also returned to the Champions League this season.

Investment in the Liverpool squad has been key to the club's progression on the field, while a handful of academy players have been handed professional contracts to continue the club's long tradition of blooding young players.

Though Liverpool spent £117m during the 2014 summer window as they brought in nine new players, Ayre says as the club look to improve their financial position they may look to cease making significant outlays on transfers and instead look to the future.

Investment in youth to continue

"When we talk about a financial prudency and managing the football club in the best way we can with what we have got, then that does mean investing in younger players some of the time that will cost less money to buy but give us better long-term value," he told the Liverpool Echo.

Brendan Rodgers
Brendan Rodgers will likely be focusing on young additions rather than marquee signings in the summer(Getty)

"We can't compete with some people who seem to have deeper pockets. But if you go about it the right way - and get the right result - then we can still be successful."

He added: "When we say it's about success on and off the pitch, it really is about everybody doing their piece. And these results start to show that that is working. We'd always expect to improve and I think I'd be confident in saying that we'll improve our position in this current year.

"But it is about each individual part and as we saw last year when we didn't have European revenue, which these results today reflect, those years are much tougher. We have to build our business on the basis that that may or may not be there in any particular season. And when it is there, it is a bonus, if you like.

"What is important to say is that when we get that additional revenue, be it from Champions League, Europa League or from finishing in different positions, the one thing about this ownership group is that they have never taken a single penny out of the football club.

"So it all goes back into the team or the club. We have been very fortunate to enjoy those additional revenue streams this year - but it goes straight back into the pot. It is all going in the same place. Brendan, myself, the owners - everyone wants to achieve as much as they can achieve and it will be reinvested."

Here he clearly reiterates the policy is to bring in and develop youth 'potential' who FSG see as providing 'better long term value'. He also says "We can't compete with some people who seem to have deeper pockets" yet Tom Werner said the following in 2012 after the sacking of Damien Comolli in an interview with the official website.

Tom Werner on Comolli decision

Following the announcement that Damien Comolli has left the club, Liverpoolfc.tv spoke to the Reds chairman Tom Werner.
 
Tom, the news this morning that Damien Comolli is leaving the club will have come as a surprise to many fans. Can you explain why the decision was taken?

I think it's fair to say no supporter would be delighted with the results we've achieved this year. We feel we are a club that needs to be perceived as the strongest club in football and we want to get there. Frankly, we make these decisions with a great deal of care because it's our track record in Boston to give people authority and we've had great success with our manager, who was there for eight years, and our general manager, so we prefer stability. But when it's time to act, we need to act. We're coming close to the end of the season and the transfer window for the summer, and we felt it was important to make this change expeditiously.

In light of Damien's departure, do you still think there is a need for a director of football at this club?

We're still confident the structure we've discussed is the right structure. That doesn't mean we won't look at tweaking it, but we feel a collective group of people making football decisions is healthy. The debate is healthy. Part of the reason we made this decision now is because we want to start the process of finding an excellent replacement.

Do you have a candidate in mind for the role?

We don't have any specific candidates in mind. Part of the reason we made this decision yesterday was to be in the best possible position to move forward as quickly as possible.

Is Damien's departure a reflection that the ownership group were unhappy with the return on player investment?

I would say we certainly have the resources to compete with anybody in football. I wouldn't want to get specific about any particular decision that's been made. We feel there is enough talent on the pitch to win and, as I said, we've been dissatisfied, as most supporters have been, with the results so far. But we're also talking about the future - we have a strategy we need implemented and we felt Damien was probably not the right person to implement that strategy.

Does Damien Comolli's departure have any impact upon Kenny Dalglish's position as manager?

Absolutely not. We've got great confidence in Kenny. We feel the team is going to make strides in the future and he enjoys our full support.

Do you envisage any other changes in the senior management of the club?

We do not. It's a good question. We believe the senior management is very strong, Ian Ayre is an outstanding managing director. His charge is to raise revenue so that we can put the resources into strengthening our football club. We've got great confidence in the other people in football operations, and so the answer is there will be no future changes of significance.

In terms of transfer activity this summer, will Damien's departure affect plans that are already underway?

We've had a strategy that we have agreed on. There was some disconnect on the implementation of that. That strategy is a strong one and it will continue. We need to build a strong system under the first team. We're hard at work identifying transfer targets and we will be better next year.

Finally, as chairman of Liverpool Football Club, do you have a message for the supporters ahead of the very important game on Saturday?

We're all excited about this match. We certainly feel the team is healthy and the team is committed. We just attended a practice where they are excited about returning to Wembley. There's only one team in England that has the possibility of winning this cup and the Carling Cup, and I think our supporters around the world should feel very confident.

The key point being in italics. "I would say we certainly have the resources to compete with anybody in football" yet you have Ian Ayre saying "We can't compete with some people who seem to have deeper pockets". So which is it? We can compete or we can't compete?

Nonetheless, there you have it. Brendan Rodgers works as part of a Directorate of Football, he does not have sole say on players, he works to a policy that everyone who knows anything about football, from fans to pundits, know that it simply does not work on its own, with a board that can simultaneously both compete and not compete with anyone else in the league and if anyone thinks anyone else coming in to the club will do any better with this mess then you're sadly deluded. Given the amount of confusion at the business end and the fact he's working within tight constraints, and has lost both his top strikers this season and brought in a defender who no one thought would under perform to the extent he has, I think we're doing rather well in 5th place.

You know this commitee that Rodgers is only a cog in , its interesting how they work isn't it.
It seems they are quite strict on buying youthful players. Like the teenager Ricki Lambert? So one day they just decide out of the f***in blue to rip up their transfer model and sign him . Or maybe Rodgers wanted him and got him.
Also , the commitee decided Mario balotelli was good business at £16 million after much scouting and wage assessments. How could we lose? I mean just look at his track record. Its a no brainer. Or maybe Rodgers wanted him.
Also , when Sunderland made a bid of £12 million for that deadly marksman Borini. Meaning we could actually make money on this dud. The commitee got their heads together again and decided, after much delibaration, that it would be bad business to part company on such a shrewd investment. Or maybe Rodgers wanted him.
Get back to your drawing board mate.

Can't see all the fuss really, the commitee is analagous with the bootroom and although more stats and information are available nowadays, Shanks like to set base lines for players, scouting them in tough away fixtures, preferably in bad conditions.  I'd harbour some of the notes taken by scouts back in the day contained statistical analysis as well, even if it wasn't called that.

Personally I can't see where the analogy (between Bill Shankly, Bob Paisley, Joe Fagan, Reuben Bennett, Tom Sanders, Ronnie Moran and Kenny Dalglish [footballing men all] and Michael Edwards, Ian Graham, Ian Ayre, Dave Fallows and Brendan Rodgers) comes from. Even if we set aside any policy dictat from 'directors' but each to their own.

Although, to be fair; if you're seeing the committee as being analogous with the boot room then it's understandable that you wouldn't see the need for any fuss Rodders.

Needs a big game today does the boss.

I'm hoping for a clear sign of direction for the team because looking at the last game it appeared he was almost at a loss as to what to do.

It seems they are quite strict on buying youthful players. Like the teenager Ricki Lambert? So one day they just decide out of the f***in blue to rip up their transfer model and sign him . Or maybe Rodgers wanted him and got him.
Also , the commitee decided Mario balotelli was good business at £16 million after much scouting and wage assessments. How could we lose? I mean just look at his track record. Its a no brainer. Or maybe Rodgers wanted him.

Or maybe... if you read what has been written... those players were seen as "A risk worth taking" at a low price, in a [business] model which also includes not overpaying for players? The objective of the owners [business] model - low financial risk, to optimise their return - does not sit comfortably with any known, successful football strategy.

A part of me [the cynical 'F**k these tards' part] would like to see some fans get their way - we get a new manager, who has to work under the same restrictions and watch on as he too fails to win the title. Maybe then (that part of me thinks), the penny will drop and those folk will finally, finally... call for a change of policy rather than the head of the boss but...

That would only be buying FSG more time. That would only mean that the team I love suffers for longer. So... I'll say only this: whether we keep Brendan or sign Klopp [the trendy choice], without a change of tack from our owners; neither will bring success.

Would they really though?

We hadn't won a single thing in almost 12 years before Shankly arrived. Nothing. So I'd guess expectation was a lower.

He changed the mentality within the club to the winning one we still have today.

Yes they would, you're looking at it through the lens of history. He changed the mentality within the club because he was given time and shown patience to build a legacy. He set in stone foundations that the modern club is built on but he didn't do that in three years, he did that across his time in the job. After winning the title in 1965-66 season, we went on to finish in 5th place three times. After winning the title twice, the sense of entitlement amongst modern fans and owners would put unbearable pressure on a manager who went from 1st. to 5th in the span of two seasons. Just look at the pressure on Brendan Rodgers for going from 2nd to 5th. Let it be a cautionary tale. We are not Citeh, we have a reputation of standing by our managers. Let's not make that the latest piece of our history to go out the window.

Your apsolutely right mate , i don't know for sure what the commitee does. So i have to base my case on what i'm being told by the manager. If he actually said " i am shown  a pool of players and told you must choose from these" then i would share the blame more evenly.

If you actually absorbed any if the information you read, you would know what the Committee do.

So, Rodgers briefs his team on the positions to fill, the scouting team then provide recommendations and the committee collectively value the player accordingly, in terms of value and also wages.

Yes they would, you're looking at it through the lens of history. He changed the mentality within the club because he was given time and shown patience to build a legacy. He set in stone foundations that the modern club is built on but he didn't do that in three years, he did that across his time in the job. After winning the title in 1965-66 season, we went on to finish in 5th place three times. After winning the title twice, the sense of entitlement amongst modern fans and owners would put unbearable pressure on a manager who went from 1st. to 5th in the span of two seasons. Just look at the pressure on Brendan Rodgers for going from 2nd to 5th. Let it be a cautionary tale. We are not Citeh, we have a reputation of standing by our managers. Let's not make that the latest piece of our history to go out the window.

I disagree mate.

Or maybe... if you read what has been written... those players were seen as "A risk worth taking" at a low price, in a [business] model which also includes not overpaying for players? The objective of the owners [business] model - low financial risk, to optimise their return - does not sit comfortably with any known, successful football strategy.

A part of me [the cynical 'f**k these tards' part] would like to see some fans get their way - we get a new manager, who has to work under the same restrictions and watch on as he too fails to win the title. Maybe then (that part of me thinks), the penny will drop and those folk will finally, finally... call for a change of policy rather than the head of the boss but...

That would only be buying FSG more time. That would only mean that the team I love suffers for longer. So... I'll say only this: whether we keep Brendan or sign Klopp [the trendy choice], without a change of tack from our owners; neither will bring success.

Welcome to the debating room mate, thank f*** there's someone else who's seeing it for what it is. Sack the manager if we must, install someone else (please God let it be Benitez or the "through clenched teeth" brigade will have to pretend they're supporting the new bloke all over again), but unless we at the very least slightly alter POLICY, that manager is up against it.

Welcome to the debating room mate, thank f*** there's someone else who's seeing it for what it is. Sack the manager if we must, install someone else (please God let it be Benitez or the "through clenched teeth" brigade will have to pretend they're supporting the new bloke all over again), but unless we at the very least slightly alter POLICY, that manager is up against it.

There are plenty on here Mick who 'see things as they are' but still lean towards looking for a change.

I dont think its fair to label all those who see the possibility of change as idiots who don't see what goes on above the manager as well.

I ask you.

If FSG were never to change policy do we just automatically think no other manager could do any better?

How long do you just accept that the current manager is the best we could have under current constraints?

Like I said a few days back if FSG guaranteed to change policy in the summer and allow Brendan to buy 2 or even 3 top quality players that he sees we need then I'd happily go with Brendan for another season.

I highly doubt that will happen and my fear is, taking the three years into account, Brenfan may well have shown his peak under the current policy and we can expect more of the same and be in the same position next summer or, which is even worse, come Christmas time.

Not everyone who suggests the managers position is under pressure hasn't taken into account all the information at hand.

Welcome to the debating room mate, thank f*** there's someone else who's seeing it for what it is. Sack the manager if we must, install someone else (please God let it be Benitez or the "through clenched teeth" brigade will have to pretend they're supporting the new bloke all over again), but unless we at the very least slightly alter POLICY, that manager is up against it.

Do you genuinely agree with Brendan that no other manager in the world could be doing a better job then him at Liverpool Bigmick, do you not find that level or blind arrogance slightly worrying? Personally I think Brendan had a good opportunity and he's wasted it, the team has not improved under his tenure and for that reason he needs to be replaced with a competent manager who doesn't have a hugely inflated ill deserved ego.

Do you genuinely agree with Brendan that no other manager in the world could be doing a better job then him at Liverpool Bigmick, do you not find that level or blind arrogance slightly worrying? Personally I think Brendan had a good opportunity and he's wasted it, the team has not improved under his tenure and for that reason he needs to be replaced with a competent manager who doesn't have a hugely inflated ill deserved ego.

I believe this is what we're trying to get across:

Does it make statistical sense to sack a football manager?

The top three clubs in the Premier League have new managers. But statistically speaking, do managers really make a difference to a team's performance?

Paolo Di Canio's enthusiasm was cited by the press as the reason Sunderland remained in the top flight last season.

When he took over the reins at the club, they were teetering on the edge of relegation and without a win in nine matches. Sunderland's future was not looking good.

After defeat to Chelsea in his opening game in charge, Di Canio secured back-to-back wins, first against local north-east of England rivals Newcastle and then Everton. But how much of this seemingly miraculous turnaround in form can be attributed to Di Canio himself?

Not much, according to Dutch economist Dr Bas ter Weel.

"Changing a manager during a crisis in the season does improve the results in the short term," he says. "But this is a misleading statistic because not changing the manager would have had the same result."

Ter Weel analysed managerial turnover across 18 seasons (1986-2004) of the Dutch premier division, the Eredivisie. As well as looking at what happened to teams who sacked their manager when the going got tough, he looked at those who had faced a similar slump in form but who stood by their boss to ride out the crisis.

He found that both groups faced a similar pattern of declines and improvements in form.



While Ter Weel's research focused on Dutch football, he argues that this finding is not specific to the Netherlands. Major football leagues in Europe, including England, Germany, Italy and Spain also bore out the same conclusion - teams suffering an uncharacteristic slump in form will bounce back and return to their normal long-term position in the league, regardless of whether they replace their manager or not.

In the same way that water seeks its own level, numbers and series of numbers will move towards the average, move towards the ordinary.
David Sally, co-author of The Numbers Game

And his theory seems to work if you look at what happened to other clubs in the English Premier League last season. The same week in March which spurred Sunderland to change the personnel in charge, Aston Villa were sitting at 17th in the table, struggling against relegation.

Villa too had been struggling to find form. Instead of dispensing with the services of manager Paul Lambert, however, the Villa board hung on and witnessed a turnaround in form. Over the same period of five matches Villa notched up two wins, a draw and two losses - exactly the same results that Paolo Di Canio achieved in his first five games in charge.

So how can this be explained? It's an age-old statistical phenomenon known as regression to the mean.

"In the same way that water seeks its own level, numbers and series of numbers will move towards the average, move towards the ordinary," David Sally, co-author of the football statistics book The Numbers Game, explains.

"The extraordinary, numbers-wise, is followed by the ordinary; the ordinary is followed by the ordinary; the ordinary is what happens. The average is what happens more often than not."

Paul Lambert and Paolo Di Canio

Stick or twist? Villa stuck with Lambert. Sunderland brought in Di Canio

It's this phenomenon which is taking place when we witness a small bounce-back in performance immediately after a new manager is appointed. But crucially, it would have happened anyway, and may well have been much cheaper for clubs who sacked their managers to hang on rather than be faced with a hefty pay-off.

To put it bluntly, according to Sally "a short term decline in performance is not a good reason to be firing your manager".

And of course, there are some football clubs who change manager and continue to see a lousy run of form.

Languishing in the relegation zone last season, Reading dispensed with their manager, and brought in new blood - Nigel Adkins. Unlike Sunderland's turnaround though, Reading continued their dire run, recording three losses and two draws in Adkins' first five matches in charge. They were relegated.

If slumps in form are often naturally corrected, does it make no difference at all who's at the helm?

Not quite.

"Managers and players sort in such a way that the best end up at the best clubs and the worst at the worst clubs. It is not a coincidence that Mourinho is with Chelsea and Guardiola with Bayern Munich. These clubs only attract the best managers. However, changing managers does not seem to improve the result. After releasing Villas-Boas [in March 2012] the performance of Chelsea did not improve."

Chelsea were fifth when AVB was sacked and ended the season in sixth. New manager Roberto Di Matteo did unexpectedly lead the club to Champions League glory. But Ter Weel's research looks only at league performance, not cups.

According to Sally, football clubs can be seen as any other business or company. Business research suggests that structural factors - such as how long it has been operating and which industry it is part of - are much more important than who the chief executive is. In money terms, around 15% profitability can be determined by the quality of the man or woman in charge and the same can be said for football managers, Sally estimates.

So back to this season of the English Premier League and the all-important question of whether Manchester United will retain the title. Sally is withholding judgement.

"The things that are set in stone at a club like United - that has a great stadium, a great tradition, all the facilities you would want - are very fixed in the long run and will ensure its success. But the performance of the manager - in this case Ferguson moving to Moyes - will be an important factor in its short term position in the table."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23724517

Money decides football nowadays, not managers.

I believe this is what we're trying to get across:

Does it make statistical sense to sack a football manager?

The top three clubs in the Premier League have new managers. But statistically speaking, do managers really make a difference to a team's performance?

Paolo Di Canio's enthusiasm was cited by the press as the reason Sunderland remained in the top flight last season.

When he took over the reins at the club, they were teetering on the edge of relegation and without a win in nine matches. Sunderland's future was not looking good.

After defeat to Chelsea in his opening game in charge, Di Canio secured back-to-back wins, first against local north-east of England rivals Newcastle and then Everton. But how much of this seemingly miraculous turnaround in form can be attributed to Di Canio himself?

Not much, according to Dutch economist Dr Bas ter Weel.

"Changing a manager during a crisis in the season does improve the results in the short term," he says. "But this is a misleading statistic because not changing the manager would have had the same result."

Ter Weel analysed managerial turnover across 18 seasons (1986-2004) of the Dutch premier division, the Eredivisie. As well as looking at what happened to teams who sacked their manager when the going got tough, he looked at those who had faced a similar slump in form but who stood by their boss to ride out the crisis.

He found that both groups faced a similar pattern of declines and improvements in form.



While Ter Weel's research focused on Dutch football, he argues that this finding is not specific to the Netherlands. Major football leagues in Europe, including England, Germany, Italy and Spain also bore out the same conclusion - teams suffering an uncharacteristic slump in form will bounce back and return to their normal long-term position in the league, regardless of whether they replace their manager or not.

In the same way that water seeks its own level, numbers and series of numbers will move towards the average, move towards the ordinary.
David Sally, co-author of The Numbers Game

And his theory seems to work if you look at what happened to other clubs in the English Premier League last season. The same week in March which spurred Sunderland to change the personnel in charge, Aston Villa were sitting at 17th in the table, struggling against relegation.

Villa too had been struggling to find form. Instead of dispensing with the services of manager Paul Lambert, however, the Villa board hung on and witnessed a turnaround in form. Over the same period of five matches Villa notched up two wins, a draw and two losses - exactly the same results that Paolo Di Canio achieved in his first five games in charge.

So how can this be explained? It's an age-old statistical phenomenon known as regression to the mean.

"In the same way that water seeks its own level, numbers and series of numbers will move towards the average, move towards the ordinary," David Sally, co-author of the football statistics book The Numbers Game, explains.

"The extraordinary, numbers-wise, is followed by the ordinary; the ordinary is followed by the ordinary; the ordinary is what happens. The average is what happens more often than not."

Paul Lambert and Paolo Di Canio

Stick or twist? Villa stuck with Lambert. Sunderland brought in Di Canio

It's this phenomenon which is taking place when we witness a small bounce-back in performance immediately after a new manager is appointed. But crucially, it would have happened anyway, and may well have been much cheaper for clubs who sacked their managers to hang on rather than be faced with a hefty pay-off.

To put it bluntly, according to Sally "a short term decline in performance is not a good reason to be firing your manager".

And of course, there are some football clubs who change manager and continue to see a lousy run of form.

Languishing in the relegation zone last season, Reading dispensed with their manager, and brought in new blood - Nigel Adkins. Unlike Sunderland's turnaround though, Reading continued their dire run, recording three losses and two draws in Adkins' first five matches in charge. They were relegated.

If slumps in form are often naturally corrected, does it make no difference at all who's at the helm?

Not quite.

"Managers and players sort in such a way that the best end up at the best clubs and the worst at the worst clubs. It is not a coincidence that Mourinho is with Chelsea and Guardiola with Bayern Munich. These clubs only attract the best managers. However, changing managers does not seem to improve the result. After releasing Villas-Boas [in March 2012] the performance of Chelsea did not improve."

Chelsea were fifth when AVB was sacked and ended the season in sixth. New manager Roberto Di Matteo did unexpectedly lead the club to Champions League glory. But Ter Weel's research looks only at league performance, not cups.

According to Sally, football clubs can be seen as any other business or company. Business research suggests that structural factors - such as how long it has been operating and which industry it is part of - are much more important than who the chief executive is. In money terms, around 15% profitability can be determined by the quality of the man or woman in charge and the same can be said for football managers, Sally estimates.

So back to this season of the English Premier League and the all-important question of whether Manchester United will retain the title. Sally is withholding judgement.

"The things that are set in stone at a club like United - that has a great stadium, a great tradition, all the facilities you would want - are very fixed in the long run and will ensure its success. But the performance of the manager - in this case Ferguson moving to Moyes - will be an important factor in its short term position in the table."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23724517

There is a big difference between a temporary dip in form and a team which seems to be going backwards over the course of a whole season, like we are. I still didn't get an answer to my question though, is Brendan right to say that he is the best possible manager for Liverpool, is there really no better manager in the world of football?

I believe this is what we're trying to get across:

Does it make statistical sense to sack a football manager?

The top three clubs in the Premier League have new managers. But statistically speaking, do managers really make a difference to a team's performance?

Paolo Di Canio's enthusiasm was cited by the press as the reason Sunderland remained in the top flight last season.

When he took over the reins at the club, they were teetering on the edge of relegation and without a win in nine matches. Sunderland's future was not looking good.

After defeat to Chelsea in his opening game in charge, Di Canio secured back-to-back wins, first against local north-east of England rivals Newcastle and then Everton. But how much of this seemingly miraculous turnaround in form can be attributed to Di Canio himself?

Not much, according to Dutch economist Dr Bas ter Weel.

"Changing a manager during a crisis in the season does improve the results in the short term," he says. "But this is a misleading statistic because not changing the manager would have had the same result."

Ter Weel analysed managerial turnover across 18 seasons (1986-2004) of the Dutch premier division, the Eredivisie. As well as looking at what happened to teams who sacked their manager when the going got tough, he looked at those who had faced a similar slump in form but who stood by their boss to ride out the crisis.

He found that both groups faced a similar pattern of declines and improvements in form.



While Ter Weel's research focused on Dutch football, he argues that this finding is not specific to the Netherlands. Major football leagues in Europe, including England, Germany, Italy and Spain also bore out the same conclusion - teams suffering an uncharacteristic slump in form will bounce back and return to their normal long-term position in the league, regardless of whether they replace their manager or not.

In the same way that water seeks its own level, numbers and series of numbers will move towards the average, move towards the ordinary.
David Sally, co-author of The Numbers Game

And his theory seems to work if you look at what happened to other clubs in the English Premier League last season. The same week in March which spurred Sunderland to change the personnel in charge, Aston Villa were sitting at 17th in the table, struggling against relegation.

Villa too had been struggling to find form. Instead of dispensing with the services of manager Paul Lambert, however, the Villa board hung on and witnessed a turnaround in form. Over the same period of five matches Villa notched up two wins, a draw and two losses - exactly the same results that Paolo Di Canio achieved in his first five games in charge.

So how can this be explained? It's an age-old statistical phenomenon known as regression to the mean.

"In the same way that water seeks its own level, numbers and series of numbers will move towards the average, move towards the ordinary," David Sally, co-author of the football statistics book The Numbers Game, explains.

"The extraordinary, numbers-wise, is followed by the ordinary; the ordinary is followed by the ordinary; the ordinary is what happens. The average is what happens more often than not."

Paul Lambert and Paolo Di Canio

Stick or twist? Villa stuck with Lambert. Sunderland brought in Di Canio

It's this phenomenon which is taking place when we witness a small bounce-back in performance immediately after a new manager is appointed. But crucially, it would have happened anyway, and may well have been much cheaper for clubs who sacked their managers to hang on rather than be faced with a hefty pay-off.

To put it bluntly, according to Sally "a short term decline in performance is not a good reason to be firing your manager".

And of course, there are some football clubs who change manager and continue to see a lousy run of form.

Languishing in the relegation zone last season, Reading dispensed with their manager, and brought in new blood - Nigel Adkins. Unlike Sunderland's turnaround though, Reading continued their dire run, recording three losses and two draws in Adkins' first five matches in charge. They were relegated.

If slumps in form are often naturally corrected, does it make no difference at all who's at the helm?

Not quite.

"Managers and players sort in such a way that the best end up at the best clubs and the worst at the worst clubs. It is not a coincidence that Mourinho is with Chelsea and Guardiola with Bayern Munich. These clubs only attract the best managers. However, changing managers does not seem to improve the result. After releasing Villas-Boas [in March 2012] the performance of Chelsea did not improve."

Chelsea were fifth when AVB was sacked and ended the season in sixth. New manager Roberto Di Matteo did unexpectedly lead the club to Champions League glory. But Ter Weel's research looks only at league performance, not cups.

According to Sally, football clubs can be seen as any other business or company. Business research suggests that structural factors - such as how long it has been operating and which industry it is part of - are much more important than who the chief executive is. In money terms, around 15% profitability can be determined by the quality of the man or woman in charge and the same can be said for football managers, Sally estimates.

So back to this season of the English Premier League and the all-important question of whether Manchester United will retain the title. Sally is withholding judgement.

"The things that are set in stone at a club like United - that has a great stadium, a great tradition, all the facilities you would want - are very fixed in the long run and will ensure its success. But the performance of the manager - in this case Ferguson moving to Moyes - will be an important factor in its short term position in the table."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23724517

if this is a temporary dip and research shows that teams recover the same regardless if they replace the manager or not, we should bring back Hodgson then because under that theory he's just as good as any manager after him. You should have showed Chelsea this before they rehired Jose,  just think of all the millions of compensation teams are paying to sack their managers early when they would get the same results by keeping them... you could be saving these teams absolutely millions by showing them this article since you've read this article and you know more than the business heads on high salaries in football clubs right? Spurs and West Ham... this research was done using teams consistently expecting champions league I can see.

I believe this is what we're trying to get across:

Does it make statistical sense to sack a football manager?

The top three clubs in the Premier League have new managers. But statistically speaking, do managers really make a difference to a team's performance?

Paolo Di Canio's enthusiasm was cited by the press as the reason Sunderland remained in the top flight last season.

When he took over the reins at the club, they were teetering on the edge of relegation and without a win in nine matches. Sunderland's future was not looking good.

After defeat to Chelsea in his opening game in charge, Di Canio secured back-to-back wins, first against local north-east of England rivals Newcastle and then Everton. But how much of this seemingly miraculous turnaround in form can be attributed to Di Canio himself?

Not much, according to Dutch economist Dr Bas ter Weel.

"Changing a manager during a crisis in the season does improve the results in the short term," he says. "But this is a misleading statistic because not changing the manager would have had the same result."

Ter Weel analysed managerial turnover across 18 seasons (1986-2004) of the Dutch premier division, the Eredivisie. As well as looking at what happened to teams who sacked their manager when the going got tough, he looked at those who had faced a similar slump in form but who stood by their boss to ride out the crisis.

He found that both groups faced a similar pattern of declines and improvements in form.



While Ter Weel's research focused on Dutch football, he argues that this finding is not specific to the Netherlands. Major football leagues in Europe, including England, Germany, Italy and Spain also bore out the same conclusion - teams suffering an uncharacteristic slump in form will bounce back and return to their normal long-term position in the league, regardless of whether they replace their manager or not.

In the same way that water seeks its own level, numbers and series of numbers will move towards the average, move towards the ordinary.
David Sally, co-author of The Numbers Game

And his theory seems to work if you look at what happened to other clubs in the English Premier League last season. The same week in March which spurred Sunderland to change the personnel in charge, Aston Villa were sitting at 17th in the table, struggling against relegation.

Villa too had been struggling to find form. Instead of dispensing with the services of manager Paul Lambert, however, the Villa board hung on and witnessed a turnaround in form. Over the same period of five matches Villa notched up two wins, a draw and two losses - exactly the same results that Paolo Di Canio achieved in his first five games in charge.

So how can this be explained? It's an age-old statistical phenomenon known as regression to the mean.

"In the same way that water seeks its own level, numbers and series of numbers will move towards the average, move towards the ordinary," David Sally, co-author of the football statistics book The Numbers Game, explains.

"The extraordinary, numbers-wise, is followed by the ordinary; the ordinary is followed by the ordinary; the ordinary is what happens. The average is what happens more often than not."

Paul Lambert and Paolo Di Canio

Stick or twist? Villa stuck with Lambert. Sunderland brought in Di Canio

It's this phenomenon which is taking place when we witness a small bounce-back in performance immediately after a new manager is appointed. But crucially, it would have happened anyway, and may well have been much cheaper for clubs who sacked their managers to hang on rather than be faced with a hefty pay-off.

To put it bluntly, according to Sally "a short term decline in performance is not a good reason to be firing your manager".

And of course, there are some football clubs who change manager and continue to see a lousy run of form.

Languishing in the relegation zone last season, Reading dispensed with their manager, and brought in new blood - Nigel Adkins. Unlike Sunderland's turnaround though, Reading continued their dire run, recording three losses and two draws in Adkins' first five matches in charge. They were relegated.

If slumps in form are often naturally corrected, does it make no difference at all who's at the helm?

Not quite.

"Managers and players sort in such a way that the best end up at the best clubs and the worst at the worst clubs. It is not a coincidence that Mourinho is with Chelsea and Guardiola with Bayern Munich. These clubs only attract the best managers. However, changing managers does not seem to improve the result. After releasing Villas-Boas [in March 2012] the performance of Chelsea did not improve."

Chelsea were fifth when AVB was sacked and ended the season in sixth. New manager Roberto Di Matteo did unexpectedly lead the club to Champions League glory. But Ter Weel's research looks only at league performance, not cups.

According to Sally, football clubs can be seen as any other business or company. Business research suggests that structural factors - such as how long it has been operating and which industry it is part of - are much more important than who the chief executive is. In money terms, around 15% profitability can be determined by the quality of the man or woman in charge and the same can be said for football managers, Sally estimates.

So back to this season of the English Premier League and the all-important question of whether Manchester United will retain the title. Sally is withholding judgement.

"The things that are set in stone at a club like United - that has a great stadium, a great tradition, all the facilities you would want - are very fixed in the long run and will ensure its success. But the performance of the manager - in this case Ferguson moving to Moyes - will be an important factor in its short term position in the table."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23724517

That doesn't apply to our situation however, as it's specifically about changing managers mid season. Those statistics are all about that specific season, in which a manager gets fired and another manager takes over, whether that has any use for that season.

In regards to Southampton:

Lallana, a full England international and a signing everyone was happy with.
Lovren, a Croatian international and a signing everyone was happy with.
Lambert, a £4 million striker that provided a different option and a signing everyone was happy with.

Very, very few people on these boards where unhappy with these signings. Now perhaps you missed the bit that says the manager decides the position that needs reinforcing/replacing and the rest of the transfer committee do their thing. I did not say he does not have any involvement, I said he has limited involvement. Same as Klopp would. Same as Mourinho would. Same as Ancelotti would. I also clearly state that he works to a policy of development of youth with little, if any in the way of 'marquee' signings being brought in because FSG clearly do not feel they represent value for money. Same as Klopp would. Same as Mourinho would. Same as Ancelotti would. The entire point is that changing managers will not accomplish anything because any manager brought in would be brought in to this utter chaos.

You do realize dont you that whenever any football chairman gives an official interview , its always self serving tripe.
When its goin good you can't shut them up..its always " oh yeh we all play a part in this , its not just one man. Its a combination of things" .
They cant wait to overplay their role in it.
Telling the world how clever we are.
When it goes bad , they clam up or start saying " we are now looking at different ways to build on our previous success".
They never go out and say " we have fu**ed up giving all this money to that novice" because it makes them look like poor businessmen . Which is all they are.
That is the nature of the beast in all football administration. No one puts their head on the block. Read the load of bollocks Arye said again. There is nothing incisive in it at all . Just sounds like a politician. Media spin.
The fact that you don't seem aware of this , makes me think you are naive on a level that cannot be measured.
I shudder to think how many bags of magic beans and bottles of snake oil you have in the cupboard in your house.

That doesn't apply to our situation however, as it's specifically about changing managers mid season. Those statistics are all about that specific season, in which a manager gets fired and another manager takes over, whether that has any use for that season.

It's unfair on incoming managers to come into a team mid season... unless they have access to generous funds in the January transfer season.  Often the sacked manager was sacked after they made signings so funds aren't available until summer so the replacement doesn't get to build a team but manage the failed team that the fired manager put together.  People forget about the management that is off the field too often so this is why articles like this,  basing it on results aren't going to change things in how clubs hire and fire people in the summer months. I basically agree with you on this. I also wouldn't be shocked nor would I blame them if our board already contacted Mr Klopp. I'd be surprised if they didn't since how well he did in Germany and how we couldn't beat Aston Villa with the team Rodgers built. I believe Rodgers has the final say on transfers even if he does have the board finding players and Ayre dealing with negotiations. The only thing where I can sympathise with our manager is the failure to get our first team targets. Even when we qualified for champions league we couldn't sign players,  only lose our star player... I don't fully understand why so many players snubbed us but I am thinking we must have been throwing some pretty low wage offers around.

I'm going to leave it for now as I think for the next few hours the boss deserves our full support.

Do you genuinely agree with Brendan that no other manager in the world could be doing a better job then him at Liverpool Bigmick, do you not find that level or blind arrogance slightly worrying? Personally I think Brendan had a good opportunity and he's wasted it, the team has not improved under his tenure and for that reason he needs to be replaced with a competent manager who doesn't have a hugely inflated ill deserved ego.

he's probably trying get public opinion on his side so people will be surprised if our board replace him. To say nobody could have done better is in other words saying we aren't good enough to win anything regardless of manager,  but earlier in the season nobody said that and I don't believe that now either.