This thread isnt about Kenny but trying to understand wtf is leading people to proclaim that FSG don't want to win stuff and just want money. That seems to be dying down now thankfully
In terms of statement of intent, I think that risky moves like removing the recently appointed DOF, and removing a club legend from the managers seat, is absolutely a statement of intent... that they do not believe that this particular group can deliver on their objectives to get back to the top. Whether or not it's right or not is a different matter altogether.
I thought it was the actual matter - on what basis have Henry and Werner made the decisions they have?
they have no grounding in football - they are being advised by who?
we are told the decison on Kenny was entirely based on league position - thats fits with the extent of their knowledge of football - it fits with accountants running the club - does it actually make sense from a football perspective - not sentimentality, not Kenny - just does it make sense - and are they in a position to say one way or the other?
we lost the same number of games as under rafa in 2005 but we missed more pens and hit the woodwork 20 more times - we finished 37 points off the top 4 in both seasons - but in this season we had 6 teams better off or on a par with us - in that season there was 3, in 2005 we were starting from a position of 4th , this season it was 6th - it was a transitional season which is exactly how this season was build at the start ......
its not about the league cup being the extent of our ambition but of what it means in terms of progress, rebuilding and going forwards - is it justified basing judgement on league position alone? If its is, who has told FSG it is?
As it happens I think you are right Kenny and FSG had some fundamental disagreements on what is important - if Kenny had ignored the cups arguably we'd have finished 3rd - no injury to Lucas, less tired, no distractions, more focus - thats if you have no basic understanding of how football and footballers work of course - we'd have missed Suarez for 4 more games in the league, we'd have had to use players with little or no playing time or straight back from injury, there may have been no lift from cup wins, many of the squad may have grown restless and cheesed off about selections and playing time - we played 13/14 games when it could have been 2 - the players got to Wembley three times, the pinacle of many players careers - they had the experience of a win and a defeat - it will have helped them grow as people and players. They should have learned about treating each game as it comes, that no game is more important than the next, our staff should have learned which players dont do that - who needs a kick up the arse or dropping, who relishes the challenge- they got into a routine of two games a week etc etce - this season was supposed to be transitional not terminal - there is more to the cup competitions that the prize money.
The anger I believe is principally because there is no evidence that they know what they are doing or even taht whoever is advising them does. Without that evidence speculation is reife as to motive and intent - why wouldn't it be?
Its not about whether they are ambitious - Hicks and Gillet could not be accused of lacking ambition - its about they might not have a clue about how to achieve those ambitions - accepted wisdom is that it takes time to build a successful football team - more time than Dalglish was given - at a time when fan patience is at an all time low - for the Board of a club to sack the manager without the support of the fan base seems odd - for a Board with no football knowledge to do so seems perverse -
None of that means their new structure can't be 'successful' does it - its just questions whether its being built on solid foundations.