Mamadou Sakho

[G]

This story can be spun two different ways, and it seems we both have exactly the opposite views on the matter.

I think it shows faith in the player (Faith that all/most LFC fans seem to also have) So why do you think it speaks to his attitude? He obviously wants to play for the club if reports are to be believed, so whats wrong with backing him and showing him he still has a place.

Him being out of the squad completely is an odd one. But it could be being done to drive him harder. To push him to improve on the performances he served up at the back end of last season (Which at times were no better than Lovren)

Yes it shows "the club" have faith in him but the manager is showing he has none right now and has done the same many times since "the club" signed a player different to the one he really wanted. He has 2 years left so no reason to sign a new one given his current predicament. If I was the player I wouldn't be signing a new contract at a club where the manager won't even put me in the squad and that manager went out a bought a direct replacement for me in Lovren. I can see no good reason for dropping him from the team bar the "gets injury's" factor. Not even putting him on the bench is just insult on top of that.

[dom9]

The idea of Brendan mulling over who he should offer contracts to, how much he'd like to pay them etc amused me.

Like when Rafa used to get caned for the likes of Joe Cole being on £100k a week. As if it had anything to do with Rafa.

"The club" - i.e. Ayre, Gordon etc - deal with all that. I'd imagine Rodgers is consulted, as he is a part of the committee.

I haven't suggested that.

I am suggesting that he has final say over who is and is not in his squad. So instructing the people who do the negotiating to start negotiating would absolutely be part of his remit in that case.

[Shaggy]

I haven't suggested that.

I am suggesting that he has final say over who is and is not in his squad. So instructing the people who do the negotiating to start negotiating would absolutely be part of his remit in that case.

Like I said I'm sure he's consulted but don't you think it would be a little incongruous for the man who won't even put Sakho on the bench - he prefers a loveable 56 year old comedian - to be the driving force behind a new £100,000 a week contract offer? A new £100k a week contract to sit in the stand?

It's only my view but it looks from the outside as though there's some sort of conflict. Like Barrett said, "the club" rate him....Rodgers evidently doesn't.

[G]

It's the club trying to protect their investment IMO. He has two years left but he's just started a new season without the confidence of the manager (never had it IMO but that's another thing). He can hang around for a year and try get his place back but he might not and will then be in the final year of his contract and will be determined to leave.

Get him to sign a new deal and he can sold for more than he would be if he had a year left.

[Shaggy]

It's the club trying to protect their investment IMO. He has two years left but he's just started a new season without the confidence if the manager. He can hang around for a year and try get that back but he might not and will then be in the final year of his contract and will be determined to leave.

Get him to sign a new deal and he can sold for more than he would be if he had a year left.

Agreed.

[dom9]

Like I said I'm sure he's consulted but don't you think it would be a little incongruous for the man who won't even put Sakho on the bench - he prefers a loveable 56 year old comedian - to be the driving force behind a new £100,000 a week contract offer? A new £100k a week contract to sit in the stand?

It's only my view but it looks from the outside as though there's some sort of conflict. Like Barrett said, "the club" rate him....Rodgers evidently doesn't.

Not really no.

There could be a multitude of reasons why Sakho has not been picked in the two games this season to date. Some of which have been speculated here. I don't know the truth.

It's more incongruous that a manager who claims to have control over who is and isn't in his squad would be overruled on such a matter by a mysterious committee who no longer have a say in transfers. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

As for the wages, as you say, that would not be in the managers control, based on the what we seem to know about the way that football clubs are managed these days.

It's not "evidently" either. There is no evidence. Just opinion.

[Shaggy]

None of us ever know the truth cos football is so ludicrously cloak and dagger, which is why we always end up having these speculative debates.

But if we ignore the laughable crap about Sakho not being picked cos his missus had a baby once, I think it pretty safe to assume Brendan picks the team on merit rather than any other conspiracy type of reason. So I think it's fair to say Brendan doesn't much rate Sakho. And yet he's getting a big new contract. As G said I'd say it's the club protecting Sakho's transfer value for when we inevitably sell him.

[BigChief]

Like I said I'm sure he's consulted but don't you think it would be a little incongruous for the man who won't even put Sakho on the bench - he prefers a loveable 56 year old comedian - to be the driving force behind a new £100,000 a week contract offer? A new £100k a week contract to sit in the stand?

It's only my view but it looks from the outside as though there's some sort of conflict. Like Barrett said, "the club" rate him....Rodgers evidently doesn't.

Shaggy, let it go mate. Your love of Sakho (and I love him too don't get me wrong) is taking over your ability to think rationally on this.

[Shaggy]

Shaggy, let it go mate. Your love of Sakho (and I love him too don't get me wrong) is taking over your ability to think rationally on this.

Haha. It really isn't. IMO it's the logical conclusion to reach. Why would Brendan want to pay £100k a week to someone he has sitting in the stand?

[dom9]

None of us ever know the truth cos football is so ludicrously cloak and dagger, which is why we always end up having these speculative debates.

Right, so using words such clearly and evidently is what I'm getting at. It's almost Arnish in it's certainty. IMO.

Before you know it, strong opinion becomes cast iron fact in the eyes of the majority.

[RedReet]

I’ll not pretend to know anything, but if Sakho has been dropped in the manner that lot of people are suggesting, then there is no way he will contemplate signing a new contract. Likewise, if there is any truth to it there is no way Rodgers would approve a hefty pay rise. Therefore, why would ‘the club’ even bother going to the effort of drawing up a contract if there is no chance he will sign it?

Unless of course there is another reason that he is not playing, that he is happy at the club and is confident he’ll be considered again when fit and available, so therefore might be willing to sign a new contract.

[Shaggy]

Right, so using words such clearly and evidently is what I'm getting at. It's almost Arnish in it's certainty. IMO.

Before you know it, strong opinion becomes cast iron fact in the eyes of the majority.

I meant clearly in my view.

Evidently - Rodgers evidently doesn't rate Sakho cos he's not picking him, preferring three jokers. What else would you call it?

[Lecter]

Like I said I'm sure he's consulted but don't you think it would be a little incongruous for the man who won't even put Sakho on the bench - he prefers a loveable 56 year old comedian - to be the driving force behind a new £100,000 a week contract offer? A new £100k a week contract to sit in the stand?

It's only my view but it looks from the outside as though there's some sort of conflict. Like Barrett said, "the club" rate him....Rodgers evidently doesn't.

FLMAO at the highlighted stuff

I dont know whats going on in our club, it would be a worry if the club werent united in one direction or another. If as you have suggested the club are peddling a different agenda than Rodgers is, then the mind boggles as to what they are thinking

We have kept Rodgers, given him more autonomy, bought the players he wanted and now we might be deciding that a player who hasnt made the squad would be worthy of an extended and increased contract despite the manager appearing to not rate him. Its almost as though they are hedging their bets

[dom9]

I meant clearly in my view.

Evidently - Rodgers evidently doesn't rate Sakho cos he's not picking him, preferring three jokers. What else would you call it?

He's not picked him for 2 games. I don't know the reasons why. I am absolutely uncertain about it.

In the absence of known fact, we jump to conclusions. They might be right, wrong, or partly right.

[dom9]

FLMAO at the highlighted stuff

I dont know whats going on in our club, it would be a worry if the club werent united in one direction or another. If as you have suggested the club are peddling a different agenda than Rodgers is, then the mind boggles as to what they are thinking

We have kept Rodgers, given him more autonomy, bought the players he wanted and now we might be deciding that a player who hasnt made the squad would be worthy of an extended and increased contract despite the manager appearing to not rate him. Its almost as though they are hedging their bets

Or it's almost as if it doesn't make any sense.