Dion Fanning *** MUST READ ***

[merlboo]

For me that's what I thought of the article.
We have a new manager now and some people do not like the choice. Fine.
But it's been made and will not be unmade so get behind him and stop the tirade of abuse/doubt/questions.
I found it insulting to our manager at a time when support is needed.

there is no tirade of abuse there is there

its a footy forum mate so there's always going to be 2 schools of thought or more

the article to me is reasoned

we don't have to be ostrich's and hope everythings ok at the club when (to me anyway) it quite clearly isn't

pick faults in the piece by all means

but generalising ... i don't think you can here

we have a unique set of circumstances at LFC now and the whole situation should be debated on its own merits

[merlboo]

Steady ships win...

is that what we're becoming as a fanbase ?

settling for the bare minimum ?

5 .. 10 ,15, 20 ,30 years ago ... we'd never of lied down and stood for this

why should we now ?

[Tribute]

is that what we're becoming as a fanbase ?

settling for the bare minimum ?

5 .. 10 ,15, 20 ,30 years ago ... we'd never of lied down and stood for this

why should we now ?

I don't think we're settling for this as a bare minimum, given our situation with the ownership of the club, the player unrest, the lack of top class European football next season - stability is actually an immediate requirement.

We can't move on to be the strong, confident Liverpool of old if we're not on firm foundations. Hodgson can bring back the stability, if he's the man for us after that period - well, the proof will be on the pitch for all to see.

[Tribute]

Good , some reasoned answers

You think Broughton and Purslow aren't complicit though ?

I think to be drawn in by what you've said in your last paragraph is the type of media bull.hit (apologies for the frankness ) which the hierarchy want us to believe

Liverpool existed to win trophies

Now we exist to steady ships ?

I think it's too early to say whether either is complicit or not... Purslow seemed credible and genuine when he came in. Broughton (albeit a Chelsea man) had pedigree with his commercial acumen - although I can't look at him without thinking 'Gandalf' or 'Magneto'...

Ever thought that maybe they're just playing with the cards they have been dealt as best they can... portraying some semblance of balance within the club so as not to dissuade potential investors from it being a hornets nest behind closed doors...?

Hodgson has a track record (more recently, rather than Blackburn disaster) of taking mediocrity to the next level. And that's what we've got with our squad - with a few notable exceptions - a team of individuals and not a balanced blend of flair and work horses. The Dalglish's and the Kennedy's...

We will win trophies again... of that I'm sure. But, we need solid foundations to build that challenge and a good man-manager. Roy's a decent option for achieving both.

[badpiggy]

I normally really like Dion Fanning and i think that he cuts through loads of bull****, especially about us. I think that I don't want him to be right in this case but like loads of us, I've a horrible feeling he might be. All journos have to go out on a limb at some stage and this is definitely Fanning making a call in a fairly difficult to analyse situation. I hope he's wrong but I don't think he's wrong for writing it and I certainly don't think it's vindictive or bull**** journalism at all.

[DannyMan2006]

Merlboo, I think you should put aside you're hating of all Yank appointments and get behind the manager. I am sure that 90% of LFC fans will agree in saying that he is not normally a manager that would be associated with the Liverpool job, purely because we normally tend to go for the best available that have a proven track record of success at the top level.

There are plenty of managers out there who would do a good job for LFC, we just are not aware of them as yet, as they haven't been given a chance at a club where they could show their true credentials. We as well as anyone know that Moyes is a top manager, but we would have been up in arms had we appointed him from Preston like Everton did.

Under normal circumstances Hodgson may not have proved himself capable of managing a top club such as Liverpool, but don't dismiss him so easily. I suspect he will suprise many on here with how well he actually does.

[fred_plasticine]

Merlboo, I think you should put aside you're hating of all Yank appointments and get behind the manager. I am sure that 90% of LFC fans will agree in saying that he is not normally a manager that would be associated with the Liverpool job, purely because we normally tend to go for the best available that have a proven track record of success at the top level.

There are plenty of managers out there who would do a good job for LFC, we just are not aware of them as yet, as they haven't been given a chance at a club where they could show their true credentials. We as well as anyone know that Moyes is a top manager, but we would have been up in arms had we appointed him from Preston like Everton did.

Under normal circumstances Hodgson may not have proved himself capable of managing a top club such as Liverpool, but don't dismiss him so easily. I suspect he will suprise many on here with how well he actually does.

you mean like roy evans who had no previous success or houllier who had only won one league title a decade before we appointed him?

[red g]

you mean like roy evans who had no previous success or houllier who had only won one league title a decade before we appointed him?

i would go as far to say the only manager with previous success we have ever appointed bar benitez was Souness......and look how that ended up!!

[DannyMan2006]

you mean like roy evans who had no previous success or houllier who had only won one league title a decade before we appointed him?

Roy Evans came via the boot room, Houllier came in because of his success with youngsters and it was highlighted the work he put in laid the foundations for the Successfull France team of 98' and 2000'.

[Redspin]

Sorry Merlboo, but I don't think I have.
The writer claims that Hodgson is little more than window dressing and in no way a considered replacement for Rafa. I completely disagree. I accept Rafa was a breath of fresh air and gathered momentum in his first few seasons, but it was clear to everyone that in the last year he had become stale, more obstinate and lacked the ambition to be ruthless on the pitch, unlike our neighbours just down the M62.

Whilst Hicks and Gillet are strangling the life out of the club, I'm not being drawn into the Purslow and Broughton being useless debate just yet. They need time and if they don't meet their own expected deadlines, then yes - they will fall into the Hicks and Gillet category.

Hodgson's appointment though is not a lack of ambition by the club, but a clear case of answering an urgent need - stability and a safe pair of hands. He's a good manager and maybe it's exactly what we need - irrelevant of whether we have investment of not. He's pragmatic and has a no-nonsense, simplistic approach to the game, reminiscent of Paisley and Shanks and in my book that's not a bad thing at all.

As "simplistic" means over-simplified or, indeed, naive, I think that's the last thing that reflects the approach of Shankly and Paisley. In fact their approach was the complete opposite

[Redspin]

Roy Evans came via the boot room, Houllier came in because of his success with youngsters and it was highlighted the work he put in laid the foundations for the Successfull France team of 98' and 2000'.

In fairness I wouldn't say Evans came from the boot room, in the sense of the way we associate it with the days of Shankly and Paisley. He was coach of the highly successful Liverpool reserve team at the time and was then appointed, out of the blue, as Souness's assistant. I was utterly gobsmacked when he got the main job and don't think that his Liverpool career up to that point merited his being given the top job. So he was certainly something more of a gamble than Hodgson, who at least has a varied career at full managerial level at home and in Europe. Having said that, his appointment leaves me as utterly despondent and underwhelmed as did Evans's

[Warren]

In fairness I wouldn't say Evans came from the boot room, in the sense of the way we associate it with the days of Shankly and Paisley. He was coach of the highly successful Liverpool reserve team at the time and was then appointed, out of the blue, as Souness's assistant. I was utterly gobsmacked when he got the main job and don't think that his Liverpool career up to that point merited his being given the top job. So he was certainly something more of a gamble than Hodgson, who at least has a varied career at full managerial level at home and in Europe. Having said that, his appointment leaves me as utterly despondent and underwhelmed as did Evans's

Shanks employed Evans as a coach and then he was coach under Paisley, Fagan, Kenny and Souness, he joined LFC in 65 and left in 98/99 thats 33 years unbroken service as a player and coach for a bootle boy. I'd say that pretty much makes him part of the bootroom alongside Shanks, Bennett, Fagan, Paisley and Moran

[Tribute]

As "simplistic" means over-simplified or, indeed, naive, I think that's the last thing that reflects the approach of Shankly and Paisley. In fact their approach was the complete opposite

Pass and move. Ok, simplistic to the point that other managers didn't have a clue how to compete with us...

[fred_plasticine]

Roy Evans came via the boot room, Houllier came in because of his success with youngsters and it was highlighted the work he put in laid the foundations for the Successfull France team of 98' and 2000'.

fair enough. however, none of them had success at the top level of the game before they were given the job. they weren't exactly, say, the mourinhos of their time, were they?
dreary old roy might just be reach his peak now and prove a lot of people wrong by actually becoming more successfull here than the grumpy spaniard who had the job before him.