Brendan Rodgers

[Baracus]

Isn't ours £20m odd including wages? £30m before sales and player wages is a hell of a lot. I'm pretty sure he deliberately priced himself out of the Villa move with those demands

Maybe. I would not want to guess what ours is. I think where ever Rafa manages he would always state his case for a transfer budget as stated in previous post. Just so he feels in control of the situation, rather then the mess he had to deal with during his LFC tenure.

[Baracus]

They appointed Comolli who, at the time, was reasonably well respected having pulled off some decent deals for Spurs. They clearly saw him as the "footballing brain" to help the transfer strategy, it's not their fault that he decided to completely abandon his principles on transfers and just piss money on English wasters and triple their wages.

But Comolli was supposed to be that man, who spotted the players and got a good deal. He didn't. I had fears when we appointed him because he had a history of overpaying. I can't fault their intentions to be honest. Gladly with the exception of Hodgson, they have backed their managers with funds. Think the deals now are a lot less onerous on the club if they don't work out either

I respect both your views. However I still think it’s naive for owners not to question acquisitions of any major assets and not give the final seal of approval, without questioning it at some level. I think owners with some knowledge of football would have questioned some of the signings. But it’s good that they have since learnt as seen with Rodgers.

[Sarb]

I respect both your views. However I still think it’s naive for owners not to question acquisitions of any major assets and not give the final seal of approval, without questioning it at some level. I think owners with some knowledge of football would have questioned some of the signings. But it’s good that they have since learnt as seen with Rodgers.

Yep, I see your point. But then some fans would say, why are owners interfering in team affairs, they should just provide the funds and that's it. They are definitely naive. I think they had some consultants who were advising them, not on the payroll, but were huge fans of rival teams. People have alluded to it in the past. That's the worst thing in my view

[Captain Stu]

FSG are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Same for Rodgers.

They'll never be good enough because it's not Rafa banked by a middle-eastern oil tycoon with more money than braincells.

[Muddled]

They appointed Comolli who, at the time, was reasonably well respected having pulled off some decent deals for Spurs. They clearly saw him as the "footballing brain" to help the transfer strategy, it's not their fault that he decided to completely abandon his principles on transfers and just piss money on English wasters and triple their wages.

Yup, and on the back of advice from Billy Beane.

I think it's clear that FSG have a business model that they want to adhere to, I also think it's promising that they seek advice and guidance to plug any gaps in their own experience; they've clearly made money from being good at what they do, it's just unfortunate they are learning on the job (running a football club), with Rodgers who is ... well, also *kinda* learning on the job!

[Sarb]

FSG are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Same for Rodgers.

They'll never be good enough because it's not Rafa banked by a middle-eastern oil tycoon with more money than braincells.

[dom9]

I respect both your views. However I still think it’s naive for owners not to question acquisitions of any major assets and not give the final seal of approval, without questioning it at some level. I think owners with some knowledge of football would have questioned some of the signings. But it’s good that they have since learnt as seen with Rodgers.

Do you honestly think the Glazers question Fergies transfer policy?

[Captain Stu]

We got some decent owners, they're not perfect but they also don't appear to be con artists (H&G), criminals (Glaziers), lazy cunts (Lerner) or reckless and irresponsible (Abramovich and Mansour).

They want us to be a self-sufficient business which can compete in the long-term without ending up on the brink of administration, without a wagebill that cripples us the second we drop out of Europe and with a manager who realistically could take us places.

[Mattshark]

I respect both your views. However I still think it’s naive for owners not to question acquisitions of any major assets and not give the final seal of approval, without questioning it at some level. I think owners with some knowledge of football would have questioned some of the signings. But it’s good that they have since learnt as seen with Rodgers.

Sorry, but that would be bad. Owners shouldn't undermine their manager or interfere with transfers.

[Rich]

Sorry, but that would be bad. Owners shouldn't undermine their manager or interfere with transfers.

Surely an owner of a business can do what the hell they please?

[Captain Stu]

Surely an owner of a business can do what the hell they please?

They can... but then you undermine the integrity of a business, ie, Abramovich.

Had he kept his opinions to himself people wouldn't ridicule him and Chelsea in the way that they do. That's one edge City have over them, they've spent the money but without the meddling so are slightly more credible... although fact is they're still in the **** due to short-term spending.

[Mattshark]

Surely an owner of a business can do what the hell they please?

Did I say otherwise? I pointed out that it would idiotic of them to do so. I said shouldn't, not can't.

[Tee]

Who here thinks BR is doing a better job than they expected him to when he was appointed?

FWIW I do think he should quite rightly be given time to implement his plan/philosophy. At the same time nothing in this sport surprises me anymore and if we continue to play with such inconsistency the pressure on him will only build.

[Baracus]

Yep, I see your point. But then some fans would say, why are owners interfering in team affairs, they should just provide the funds and that's it. They are definitely naive. I think they had some consultants who were advising them, not on the payroll, but were huge fans of rival teams. People have alluded to it in the past. That's the worst thing in my view

FSG are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Same for Rodgers.

They'll never be good enough because it's not Rafa banked by a middle-eastern oil tycoon with more money than braincells.

Do you honestly think the Glazers question Fergies transfer policy?

I don't follow rumours or facts wuth whats happening at Utd. Maybe they did with the Ronaldo sale?

Sorry, but that would be bad. Owners shouldn't undermine their manager or interfere with transfers.

I think owners should regradless of what the industry is. But they should be open to discussion in what every matter arises and listen to those that they have employed.



They already did with the dempsey saga with situplations?



I'm not having a dig at FSG now for what they have done. I am saying in the Kenny Comolli era they where naive IMO as owners and have subsquently learned.

[Red_Polo]

its not baseless tho is it. its a reaction to the stuff he says. his own quotes. Its only a style thing probably but the nature of it leaves doubts.

That's just it though - if it's just cringe and a 'style thing' then he's not full of **** is he? David Brent didn't just come out with cheesy management soundbites, he often misappropriated them and/or failed to understand whatever truth lay behind them and was a garbage manager as a result. I don't remember thinking anything Rodgers has said was a load of ****, however cringe it may have been. Even if he were to fail miserably with us, the idea of him as a footballing Brent would be a crude caricature of him at best.