Mamadou Sakho

[baitman]

if sakho was so great he would be undroppable.
great isnt just what he does, but also how he works with the players around him.

[Fierce]

It was mentioned in the media numerous times before he got his new deal that he didn't have the final say, it was him, Ayre and Fallows. It was mentioned in the summer that he now had final say. We've seen it with Assaidi and possibly Sahin, never got the chance to play where he should have. We see it with Sakho now, he doesn't play unless we have no choice. You might say its because he doesn't deserve to play but I've seen the likes of Tony Barrett say the boss doesn't rate him so I tend to believe that. If he didn't rate him then he certainly didn't agree to buy him.

I don't recall reading anything more than speculation

It's bat**** mental to think that a player could be signed without the approval of the person that has sole charge of whether or not that player is part of the team

[G]

Where did you get this nonsense from?





Here is a post I submitted in the Brendan Rogers thread in MAY 2013 - read it slowly and check the the whole article that's linked. And again note the date.

http://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/show...postcount=6718

It's been mentioned too many times since he took over for their not to be any substance in it. Of course the boss will say he has final say. He can't say any else but the fact the committee plays a significant role has been said many times. I read things like you do so I form an opinion based on that. You think Carra was ****e so forgive me for not taking your opinion as gospel. It was reported in summer that he finally had the final say with his new contract. Why report that if he had it all along.

On another note, since we've been epically ****e at the back since Carra retired, have you reviewed your opinion on him?

[G]

Kuyt (for most of the time anyway).



That rumour is such a load of ****. Every single player we sign who doesn't immediately nail down a first team place, "committee signing, Rodgers didn't want him" whispers start. Do people really have such a low opinion of our manager's integrity and desire to win they think he'd bomb out a player from the start just because he didn't get his own way with signing someone else? How counter-productive to his own success would that be? Maybe, just maybe, instead of a petty agenda, he and the rest of the coaching staff see a lack of application or development in training and are picking the best side they think they have to win games, which just doesn't happen to include Sakho?

I think its really insulting actually to buy into that crap, not to mention going completely against the evidence of various players like Skrtel and Henderson who played their way back into the manager's plans purely on merit.

**** me. I'm allowed an opinion and because you find it insulting doesn't mean it's not possible. He never gave Assaidi a chance either. Could've been ****e or he could've been signed without his consent. Never played Sahin in his proper position either.

Of course your reasons are very possible but so are mine. People can believe what they want and others can try their hardest not to be insulted by it.

Our transfer structure was clearly different to the norm we expect. Nobody would have talked about it in the press if it was a black and white as other clubs are. It was clearly different so it's not a stretch to assume that some players could have been signed when the manager would have preferred others.

In fairness to Rodgers he didn't fancy Skrtel much for a while but loves him now. I don't think Sakho has got a fair crack in actual games and he has a certainly not been any worse than any others in the games he has played.

[G]

I don't recall reading anything more than speculation

It's bat**** mental to think that a player could be signed without the approval of the person that has sole charge of whether or not that player is part of the team

Barrett says it all the time on another forum. Never publicly obviously but he has expressed it as fact numerous times over there.

In a normal club transfer system it would be mental, practically wasting money . But it's clear to me ours wasn't like that for the first two years of his tenure. Hell even before the committee we had Purslow buying Robbie Keane when the boss wanted Gareth Barry and we all know what happened there. It can happen.

[BootRoom]

It's been mentioned too many times since he took over for their not to be any substance in it. Of course the boss will say he has final say. He can't say any else but the fact the committee plays a significant role has been said many times. I read things like you do so I form an opinion based on that. You think Carra was ****e so forgive me for not taking your opinion as gospel. It was reported in summer that he finally had the final say with his new contract. Why report that if he had it all along.

On another note, since we've been epically ****e at the back since Carra retired, have you reviewed your opinion on him?

I'm not giving you my opinion - I'm giving you direct quotes from the Manager. Now if you'd rather believe these 'other reports' that the Manager is merely a (lying) stooge of the transfer committee then that's up to you. Why not quote a few of these 'reports of substance' so we can have a look at them?

LOL @ bringing Carragher into it, though.

[G]

Managers always tell the truth in pressers. Always. They never ever brief the opposite to journo's off the record. Ever.

[Saveloy]

Managers always tell the truth in pressers. Always. They never ever brief the opposite to journo's off the record. Ever.

I don't agree with you G but I think some of the reaction has been a bit over the top.

[G]

Unsurprisingly!

[alonso14]

I'm not so sure that Brendan Rodgers has gotten it all his own way even after signing his new deal.

As for before, I thought he wasn't in as much control as we all thought was and should be. Hence all these signings that are let go without being given a chance. Usually a manager will back his signings all the way but sakho and co haven't been given many opportunities.

[dom9]

G, what are you on?

If you're convinced about this (which you clearly are) then at least post some links to where you getting this information from. And if they are remotely credible, then so be it.

[G]

When he was signed, for a club record fee for a defender, it was Ian Ayre who was giving the soundbites to the press about the signing and how great it was, not the manager who apparently signed him. Strange that. Rodgers himself had little to say until he told the press that his new £17m defender would have to play his way into the team. What manager spends a club record fee for a defender when he isn't convinced he's good enough to go straight into the team. Contrast with Lovren, signed for a similar fee despite being too risky a year earlier for less than half that fee and a man Rodgers has been effusive about since day one, one that went straight into the team.

Back to Sakho, soon after he signed Agger gets injured and Rodgers is quoted as saying Sakho is a beast and starts to play him. Because it's either him or Toure. When Agger is back fit Sakho keeps his place for a while before getting demoted again. But as we've since found out the boss didn't fancy Agger anymore either so they played a few each here and there.

People can believe what they like. Stuff like the above is why I believe he's a player the manager didn't want. Which is fine. He shouldn't be given players he doesn't want. If it happens though I'd expect them to be given a fair crack. It's debatable whether he has been. He hasn't helped himself of course but 21 league appearances is not a lot for a young CB to acclimatise to a new, much faster and more physical league than the one he learned his trade in.

[G]

Since when do I have to prove an opinion for it to be credible Dom? It's no more or less credible than those that say Rodgers signs all our players. None of you can prove that either but take it as fact.

[dom9]

Come on, we're waiting for evidence, not anecdotes.

[dom9]

Since when do I have to prove an opinion for it to be credible Dom? It's no more or less credible than those that say Rodgers signs all our players. None of you can prove that either but take it as fact.

Because you have said:

It's been mentioned too many times since he took over for their not to be any substance in it

Barrett says it all the time on another forum.

It was mentioned in the media numerous times before he got his new deal that he didn't have the final say, it was him, Ayre and Fallows.

If that is your reason for your slightly strange opinion (which is why people are questioning you), then at least provide some links. How hard can it be?