The Owners

[Tatterdemalion]

It's not really though.

Roy Hodgson is a gaping wound in LFC, bleeding profusely. The bleeding needs to be stopped immediately before the wound can heal.



Terminal illness?

Anyway my real response is I want long term owners and I think that's more important than an immediate reaction over Hodgson.

They're clearly looking for alternatives and rather they got that right.

[Craig_H]

Anyway my real response is I want long term owners and I think that's more important than an immediate reaction over Hodgson.

They're clearly looking for alternatives and rather they got that right.

And that is fine, but keeping Bodger isnt 'getting it right', not by any stretch of the imagination.

[Tatterdemalion]

I guess we could argue all day about this, and I think we would like the same things to happen. I just feel the owners have had suffucient time to sack Hodgson and it hasn't happened. in 41 Years of watching my beloved club, this is lowest I have ever seen them, and this comes down to two reasons,

1. Hodgson
2. The current owners.

Lets agree to disagree.

Sure

He'll be gone soon enough anyway.

[Neil Young]

It's not really though.

Roy Hodgson is a gaping wound in LFC, bleeding profusely. The bleeding needs to be stopped immediately before the wound can heal.



Terminal illness?

Yes, I suppose you would use that. And again it would be overdramatic and inaccurate since, er, it wasn't terminal, was it?

And yes, your stabbing thing is again ridiculously overblown.

[little dave hedgehog]

can't wait until a really cracking new manager comes in and says "thank you to liverpool for waiting until i could make myself available. now to turn this into an attacking team."

[Craig_H]

Yes, I suppose you would use that. And again it would be overdramatic and inaccurate since, er, it wasn't terminal, was it?

And yes, your stabbing thing is again ridiculously overblown.

Thankfully, some people manage to recover from cancer - which is known as a terminal illness, isnt it?

Call it overblown if you like. We may differ on the level of damage being done to the club.

[gerbin11]

With regards to stopping the serious damage Hodgson is doing, what have they done?

In answer to this question, I don't know, none of us know. We have to look at their history with the club though, we didn't know they were buying the club until it was bought did we. We are all completely pissed off with the situation but lets have a little faith in our owners. Otherwise we will give the media the proof they need that we are becoming the next Newcastle.

[Neil Young]

Craig, it's not terminal unless it's going to kill you. It's the definition of terminal. Some people recover from cancer, nobody recovers from terminal cancer (although maybe something else kills them first).

Sure, we differ on how much damage Hodgson is continuing to do. All I was saying is let's talk about that rather than bothering with analogies that may or may not work.

[Craig_H]

In answer to this question, I don't know, none of us know. We have to look at their history with the club though, we didn't know they were buying the club until it was bought did we. We are all completely pissed off with the situation but lets have a little faith in our owners. Otherwise we will give the media the proof they need that we are becoming the next Newcastle.

Unless there's secretely a new manager already appointed, that doesnt really mean too much here. And obviously there isnt a new manager already in place, because we're still roy-****.

As for the media - i couldnt give a **** what they think.

[Neil Young]

Today's stories indicate to me that we can be totally confident Hodgson does not have a long-term future at LFC. That's great news.

[little dave hedgehog]

hi neil.

[Craig_H]

Today's stories indicate to me that we can be totally confident Hodgson does not have a long-term future at LFC. That's great news.

It is. But it also should've happened a few weeks back, when 4th may have still been possible.

[gerbin11]

Unless there's secretely a new manager already appointed, that doesnt really mean too much here. And obviously there isnt a new manager already in place, because we're still roy-****.

As for the media - i couldnt give a **** what they think.

So a question to you, do you want another knee jerk reaction and end up with Roy mkII.

We know they are reluctant to put Dalglish in charge, the reasons are clear for this, they don't see him as a long term replacement and if they put him in temporary charge they feel they will get flack for replacing him. Their only answer is to get someone lined up before they sack him. They are certainly not going to put Sammy Lee in charge so who else do you suggest.

[Craig_H]

So a question to you, do you want another knee jerk reaction and end up with Roy mkII.

We know they are reluctant to put Dalglish in charge, the reasons are clear for this, they don't see him as a long term replacement and if they put him in temporary charge they feel they will get flack for replacing him. Their only answer is to get someone lined up before they sack him. They are certainly not going to put Sammy Lee in charge so who else do you suggest.

So appointing a new manager has to be a kneejerk reaction?? How's that then?

[Tatterdemalion]

[QUOTE=gerbin11;1828397]So a question to you, do you want another knee jerk reaction and end up with Roy mkII.

We know they are reluctant to put Dalglish in charge, the reasons are clear for this, they don't see him as a long term replacement and if they put him in temporary charge they feel they will get flack for replacing him. Their only answer is to get someone lined up before they sack him. They are certainly not going to put Sammy Lee in charge so who else do you suggest.[/QUOTE]

I don't know where you get your information from, but that **** for that