Topic: 6 months of Roy Hodgson quotes

[Kahuna{=}Berger]

Honestly was not trying to dodge the question mate. Those are my views on it.
And I said Roy has to be accountable for this season, when its over. Not yet. So far, ok its been terrible and very frustrating but Im not 100% convinced any other manager would have got more out of the players at this point. Thats not to say im right, its just my view on things.

The owners will decide what they thinks is best but you have to realise they are new to the sport , they have appointed Comolli, which is obviously their way of trying to have some say in the team from the off and they are learning. I can forgive them if they dont appoint a new man this season because of those issues. In terms of the the clubs future, one season will not define it.

You do realise the massive amount of irony in that last bit?

[shelovesyou]

You do realise the massive amount of irony in that last bit?

Enlighten me!

[OohCampione]

Honestly was not trying to dodge the question mate. Those are my views on it.
And I said Roy has to be accountable for this season, when its over. Not yet. So far, ok its been terrible and very frustrating but Im not 100% convinced any other manager would have got more out of the players at this point. Thats not to say im right, its just my view on things.

The owners will decide what they thinks is best but you have to realise they are new to the sport , they have appointed Comolli, which is obviously their way of trying to have some say in the team from the off and they are learning. I can forgive them if they dont appoint a new man this season because of those issues. In terms of the the clubs future, one season will not define it.

Your answers are interesting to say the least.

You try to justify the rights and wrongs about replacing the manager without actually giving an opinion on how you think Roy is doing.
If you are happy with Roy at the moment then that's fine, it's an opinion, but I'd be interested as to how you gauge his performance.
Good enough or not?
No if's, but's and maybe's - just your opinion on how your Liverpool manager and how he's living up to your standards and expectations.

[CHOPPER]

So surely he should have the undying gratitude of every Red, and deserves to be reinstated as soon as feasible? As Roy has said, there is nothing more that he can do.

Fanciful stuff but it doesn't work like that, he probably won't be re-instated as his track record will scare of NESV more than likely.

And to my understanding all he wanted was more money out of them, not for them to be ousted. Privately that may be different of course but I'm sure all Rafa was concerned about was getting money for transfers.

[Kahuna{=}Berger]

Enlighten me!

Well, last season was one season. It was also one season that had a massive bearing on the club. One season that has, due to decisions that were made, club defining decisions, we are left with a man who has 35 years experience at winning nothing. All from one season.

But anyway, that's going 'round in circles.

[shelovesyou]

Your answers are interesting to say the least.

You try to justify the rights and wrongs about replacing the manager without actually giving an opinion on how you think Roy is doing.
If you are happy with Roy at the moment then that's fine, it's an opinion, but I'd be interested as to how you gauge his performance.
Good enough or not?
No if's, but's and maybe's - just your opinion on how your Liverpool manager and how he's living up to your standards and expectations.

I told you my view in the post you quoted with this post mate. Its been terrible I said.

I thought we , as LFC supporters, didnt judge a manager mid way through his FIRST season. Its in May we can properly judge him, because as unlikely as it may seem, we MIGHT turn our form on its head and really improve. No guarantees of that of course which in turn means no guarantees it wont. Its hard to judge the man on half a season mate. But I am not shy to the fact that so far it isnt what one would expect of LFC.

[shelovesyou]

Well, last season was one season. It was also one season that had a massive bearing on the club. One season that has, due to decisions that were made, club defining decisions, we are left with a man who has 35 years experience at winning nothing. All from one season.

But anyway, that's going 'round in circles.

Yes, bit it will not define the football club.

[OohCampione]

 but I'm sure all Rafa was concerned about was getting money for transfers.

Ya know what Chopper, for someone usually so decent, that is some unfounded bollocks*

*Unless I've spectacularly missed a point

[Kahuna{=}Berger]

Yes, bit it will not define the football club.

You don't think?

I think it has defined perfectly where Liverpool Football Club was in 2010. Fracticious, morally corrupt under Tom, George and Cecil and the greatest split among the fan-base in my memory.

[shelovesyou]

You don't think?

I think it has defined perfectly where Liverpool Football Club was in 2010. Fracticious, morally corrupt under Tom, George and Cecil and the greatest split among the fan-base in my memory.

Ah but thats not what we were discussing mate. It will not define the club. It might well define the club in 2010 but thats not we were discussing.

[CHOPPER]

Ya know what Chopper, for someone usually so decent, that is some unfounded bollocks*

*Unless I've spectacularly missed a point

Well maybe a little narrow in scope, but from what ipcress was implying he should be re-instated for taking on the board, for which his (rafa's) main complaint was lack of funds, not, to my understanding, the removal of both H&G. Unless I missed something and he came out and said so, to which, no wonder he got sacked in all honesty.

[Kahuna{=}Berger]

Ah but thats not what we were discussing mate. It will not define the club. It might well define the club in 2010 but thats not we were discussing.

I know mate. Was just picking up on that small point. What happened this one year has left me feeling incredibly alienated from the club that I've followed me whole life. Anyway, I digress. Hopefully we're through the worst of it.

[Hazell]

Well maybe a little narrow in scope, but from what ipcress was implying he should be re-instated for taking on the board, for which his (rafa's) main complaint was lack of funds, not, to my understanding, the removal of both H&G. Unless I missed something and he came out and said so, to which, no wonder he got sacked in all honesty.

I think Rafa was concerned about the club as a whole - him wanting money for transfers was to improve the quality of the squad. As for the removal of H+G, no doubt they were terrible owners, not just for the fans, but for the manager as well, so him wanting them out isn't an unreasonable assumption.

[shelovesyou]

I know mate. Was just picking up on that small point. What happened this one year has left me feeling incredibly alienated from the club that I've followed me whole life. Anyway, I digress. Hopefully we're through the worst of it.

Its not nice to hear that of any LFC supporter mate, keep the faith, cliche I know but we will get there.

[OohCampione]

Well maybe a little narrow in scope, but from what ipcress was implying he should be re-instated for taking on the board, for which his (rafa's) main complaint was lack of funds, not, to my understanding, the removal of both H&G. Unless I missed something and he came out and said so, to which, no wonder he got sacked in all honesty.

A little narrow in scope? Chopper, even when you're taking the piss or having a laugh, you never seem to post on a whim: it's always thought through, or seems to be.

If you believe that Benitez tirades were solely for the purpose of increasing his transfer budget then I think it's a little sad. Is it not obvious that he was highlighting the fact that the club was being run by a pair of shysters? Was it really not obvious that he was simply trying to let the fans know if the internal 'irregularities'?

At best, your point was disrespectful. At worst, just ignorant, but that's just not you!

A little narrow in scope? Just a little.

[Ipcress]

Fanciful stuff but it doesn't work like that, he probably won't be re-instated as his track record will scare of NESV more than likely.

And to my understanding all he wanted was more money out of them, not for them to be ousted. Privately that may be different of course but I'm sure all Rafa was concerned about was getting money for transfers.

His track record of getting into the champions league every season bar 1?

Or his track record of trying to get owners to keep to their promises? Is there something about NESV that we don't know about?

My understanding was that Rafa was trying to do the best for the club, short term, medium term and long term, and was trying to reinvest funds that he had earned for the club for that very purpose.

[CHOPPER]

I think Rafa was concerned about the club as a whole - him wanting money for transfers was to improve the quality of the squad. As for the removal of H+G, no doubt they were terrible owners, not just for the fans, but for the manager as well, so him wanting them out isn't an unreasonable assumption.

Yes, an assumption. I'm not trying to say he didn't have a vested interest in how the club was ran but if! the yanks had continued to give him money, even though it was placed on the debt of the club, like a year previous when we signed masch and FT would his public spats with the board, been so public? I'm not so sure.

[Eeyore]

Well maybe a little narrow in scope, but from what ipcress was implying he should be re-instated for taking on the board, for which his (rafa's) main complaint was lack of funds, not, to my understanding, the removal of both H&G. Unless I missed something and he came out and said so, to which, no wonder he got sacked in all honesty.

He wanted the money he had generated in prize money and the Champions League investing in the Club and not being used to pay off Hicks and Gillet's loans.

[CHOPPER]

A little narrow in scope? Chopper, even when you're taking the piss or having a laugh, you never seem to post on a whim: it's always thought through, or seems to be.

If you believe that Benitez tirades were solely for the purpose of increasing his transfer budget then I think it's a little sad. Is it not obvious that he was highlighting the fact that the club was being run by a pair of shysters? Was it really not obvious that he was simply trying to let the fans know if the internal 'irregularities'?

At best, your point was disrespectful. At worst, just ignorant, but that's just not you!

A little narrow in scope? Just a little.

It was obvious that said shysters were indeed shysters and as I''ve mentioned above, if they had continued to give him the necessary funds required would he have been so public in his condemnation of the yanks?

[CHOPPER]

He wanted the money he had generated in prize money and the Champions League investing in the Club and not being used to pay off Hicks and Gillet's loans.

Yes, I agree, but read my posts above and tell me what you think. I know some will see it as some sort of afront to the name of Rafa Benitez, it isn't, just an assumption.

[Cadno]

It was obvious that said shysters were indeed shysters and as I''ve mentioned above, if they had continued to give him the necessary funds required would he have been so public in his condemnation of the yanks?

Are you trying to get  the conspiracy theory crown from AL or you just letting your dislike of the man form your assumptions?

[Ipcress]

It was obvious that said shysters were indeed shysters and as I''ve mentioned above, if they had continued to give him the necessary funds required would he have been so public in his condemnation of the yanks?

Dunno, let's find out by calling for him to be placed under owners that won't take away money he's made to pay off their debts, and allow him to reinvest it in the squad.

Surely he deserves it for his part in the downfall of H&G, don't you agree?

[Eeyore]

Yes, I agree, but read my posts above and tell me what you think. I know some will see it as some sort of afront to the name of Rafa Benitez, it isn't, just an assumption.

For me Benitez could of done what Ferguson has done at United and said the money was there but there wasn't value in the market, he didn't he chose to call the pair of lying bastards out.

If he hadn't what evidence would we of had of Hicks and Gillet being shysters. They could of portayed themselves as cautious businessmen shelving the stadium plans until the markets recovered.

[CHOPPER]

Are you trying to get  the conspiracy theory crown from AL or you just letting your dislike of the man form your opinions?

My dislike? Care to elaborate on my said dislike? As for conspiracy, i'm making an assumption, no conspiracy.

[Hazell]

Yes, an assumption. I'm not trying to say he didn't have a vested interest in how the club was ran but if! the yanks had continued to give him money, even though it was placed on the debt of the club, like a year previous when we signed masch and FT would his public spats with the board, been so public? I'm not so sure.

That's an assumption too. BUT, given his comments and actions since 2004, I imagine it would have been a concern as opposed to 'it's not my problem'. That he came out and said what he did should show that he did have the welfare of the club in his thoughts.

[OohCampione]

It was obvious that said shysters were indeed shysters and as I''ve mentioned above, if they had continued to give him the necessary funds required would he have been so public in his condemnation of the yanks?

Unless Rafa is sat in your front room with you, it's hardly a question with a definitive answer is it. Had the yanks been able to give Rafa the money he wanted, there's a plausible argument that the club may not have been in as bad a state as it was, as it only becomes an issue when repayments interfere with the day to day running of the club.

With that aside, the answer really depends on what your personal feelings on Rafa are/were. I am of the belief that he is a decent man - a man with dignity and a touch of class. I therefore, think he would still have blown the whistle if he thought the owners weren't fit for purpose.

If you think Benitez is an egotistical, self-centred control freak than your opinion is going to be the polar opposite.

[Red number seven]

It was obvious that said shysters were indeed shysters and as I''ve mentioned above, if they had continued to give him the necessary funds required would he have been so public in his condemnation of the yanks?

Had they done that, they would've been investing money into the club rather than some low tax Caribbean retirement fund, we would've had a good go at winning the title and we would probably all still be happy.

IE Hicks and Gilett, had they invested the club's winnings into the first team, would've been reasonable owners. One could argue about whether they would've been better investing in building a stadium,  improving the academy, medical facilities etc but, ultimately, owners who don't take a lot of money out, allow some of the money made to be reinvested in the clu and don't interefere directly with footballing affairs are decent owners.

So the argument "if they would've given Benitez the money that he wanted (and was promised) he wouldn't have fought them doesn't make a lot of sense - why would or should he have fought owners who had proper on-field ambitions for the club?

[Ambrosia]

Yes, I agree, but read my posts above and tell me what you think. I know some will see it as some sort of afront to the name of Rafa Benitez, it isn't, just an assumption.

I don't think it's an assumption. I think it's true. Rafa just wanted funds from the yanks and that was his almost always his problem with them. People shouldn't take that as an affront to Rafa because at the end of the day he exposed the yanks of being incapable of investing the money a club the size of Liverpool demands and kept the pressure on them to invest rather than accepting that we should become a mid table club like Hodgson did when he accepted the job in the summer.

[Ipcress]

I don't think it's an assumption. I think it's true. Rafa just wanted funds from the yanks and that was his almost always his problem with them. People shouldn't take that as an affront to Rafa because at the end of the day he exposed the yanks of being incapable of investing the money a club the size of Liverpool demands and kept the pressure on them to invest rather than accepting that we should become a mid table club like Hodgson did when he accepted the job in the summer.

Actually, he exposed them as owners taking money out of the club that he had earned for the club, but yeah, he definitely had higher ambitions for the club than our current incumbant.

[bleedsred1978]

Actually, he exposed them as owners taking money out of the club that he had earned for the club, but yeah, he definitely had higher ambitions for the club than our current incumbant.

And he also had ambition for himself. Both could have went hand in hand but alas not to be.

[rafa4eva]

is this thread purely set up to bash the manager of liverpool fc?

hodgson inherited a squad that could only finish 7th last season.  on top of that, 3 of that squad (mascherano, benayoun, riera) were already on their way out of the door before hodgson could have his 1st competitive game, further weakening that 7th placed squad.

in roys only transfer window, he was give a negative transfer spend

wouldn't it be fair if we gave our new manager 1 full season in charge and then judged him at the end of the season and see whether he can improve on our 7th place finish of last season, despite that negative transfer spend?

if roy could improve on 7th, despite a negative transfer spend, and despite our own fans not backing or supporting him, then surely he will have proved his worth?

Sorry Stormtrooper , having read a few of your posts and IMO, you seem to be describing last season's LFC performance regards finishing in 7th in the league as if it was a performance which squeezed every last drop of blood, tears and sweat from the team, everything went our way, every decision went in our favour.....if that was the case then maybe your line of argument regards supporting Roy has some validity, 9th isnt so bad if you take that perspective.

However the above didnt happen though did it? IMO last season, we ended up in 7th after a cl*sterf*ck of season, where beachballs scored, we had Rafa walking around in dead man shoes, injuries, mascher played half the season with his head in the clouds, Aquliani stayed in the treatment room longer than on the pitch and Reira was frozen out for half the season...Benayoun has left, but we did get wonder signing Joe Cole to cover Benayouns role ( allegedly )...anything that could go wrong, did go wrong...but we still ended up 7th stumbling, falling, limping over the finish line...

Im not sure if you intentionally positioned last season's 7th as I have outlined, but thats the way it comes across to me which IMO is not a fair reflection of what happened last season, 7th was not the best that the team could have achieved, far from it...

[Hazell]

I don't think it's an assumption. I think it's true. Rafa just wanted funds from the yanks and that was his almost always his problem with them. People shouldn't take that as an affront to Rafa because at the end of the day he exposed the yanks of being incapable of investing the money a club the size of Liverpool demands and kept the pressure on them to invest rather than accepting that we should become a mid table club like Hodgson did when he accepted the job in the summer.

Yeah, I guess. Just think that it should be commended that he did speak out against the owners in order to try and get the best for the club instead of keeping his mouth shut as a lot of other managers are likely to have done.

[bleedsred1978]

Sorry Stormtrooper , having read a few of your posts and IMO, you seem to be describing last season's LFC performance regards finishing in 7th in the league as if it was a performance which squeezed every last drop of blood, tears and sweat from the team, everything went our way, every decision went in our favour.....if that was the case then maybe your line of argument regards supporting Roy has some validity, 9th isnt so bad if you take that perspective.

However the above didnt happen though did it? IMO last season, we ended up in 7th after a cl*sterf*ck of season, where beachballs scored, we had Rafa walking around in dead man shoes, injuries, mascher played half the season with his head in the clouds, Aquliani stayed in the treatment room longer than on the pitch and Riera was frozen out for half the season...Benayoun has left, but we did get wonder signing Joe Cole to cover Benayouns role ( allegedly )...anything that could go wrong, did go wrong...but we still ended up 7th stumbling, falling, limping over the finish line...

Im not sure if you intentionally positioned last season's 7th as I have outlined, but thats the way it comes across to me which IMO is not a fair reflection of what happened last season, 7th was not the best that the team could have achieved, far from it...

And we still had the thrid tightest defence in the league even allowing for all the problems.

[NowInOz]

Often there were several in the same team. Danny Blanchflower and Dave Mackay at Spurs, the great Arsenal team with (Tony) Adams etc

Great...........................In fact fucking amazing

Seriously did he say this or is it a piss take?

[GrkStav]

hodgson inherited a squad that could only finish 7th last season.

So, was it MERELY or primarily the squad itself, the personnel, that CAUSED our 7th place finish last season?

What sort of empirical evidence would disprove your implicit hypothesis?

Hodgson inherited, so to speak, a fit Aquilani and a still young, still promising, still problematic defensively Insua. He agreed to have them both loaned out and brought in Poulsen and Konchesky. He did not inherit Benayoun but he inherited Cole (at least that's how he appears to have described his contribution to our having gotten Cole). He inherited Agger but he played him at Left Back. He inherited (allegedly) the sale of Nemeth to Olympiakos and was instrumental in moving El Zhar and Plessis to PAOK and Panathinaikos respectively on lease-to-buy deals. When he 'lost' Mascherano, the owners bought him Meireles and certainly not as cover for Mascherano (a preposterous idea) but as midfield reinforcement.

Roughly the same squad that Hodgson inherited was good enough for 2nd place in the League with 86 points.

[rafa4eva]

strange, because it seems like its acceptable to slate our current manager in order to defend our old manager?

Deja Vu! the current manager's quotes, the ones that he continues to articulate in public are being critiqued from what I have read, its not like RAWK posters ransacked roy's house and are now sharing publically his private thoughts is it?

I dont know what you reference when you talk about slating the current manager in defense of the old manager, Roy's criticisms at least IMO are based on what he has done and said whilst being LFC manager.....nothing to do with Rafa....

maybe it is worth asking if you have Rafa quotes which could compare to the gems that Roy keeps sharing with the world, maybe that may be more productive to highlight if indeed Rafa came up with quotes which werent critiqued whilst Roys are......?

[Hazell]

It's ironic that the person trying to 'defend' our current manager, seemed only to post in this thread to have a go at our old one.

[BabuYagu]

Who do you think Hodgson is talking about here it sounds like he wants to sell someone but they don't want to go who has 3 years on their contract apart from him of course.

But the Liverpool manager admits that it will be difficult to coax many of the club’s high earners through the exit.

“It’s the usual question – money versus playing,” he says.

“How much does playing mean to you and how much does money mean to you?

“Some players not in the team will find other clubs want them, but the same sum of money (in wages) is not there.

“So the player has to ask if they are so uninterested in playing, will they sit for three years despite the fact that the club has made it perfectly clear they don’t want them and there’s no game for them.

“If they want that for three years, they’ve virtually got to kiss (their career) goodbye. If you spend three years on your backside, not kicking a ball apart from the odd reserve game, you’ll find you’re not going to be a player at all.”


Read More http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2010/12/27/roy-hodgson-s-troubles-are-not-all-of-his-own-making-but-liverpool-s-luck-must-turn-92534-27890300/3/#ixzz19IXlCP8T

Could be Agger. I remember him saying in an interview he had 3 1/2 years on his contract and so wouldn't be forced out, or words to that effect.

[GrkStav]

The notion that anyone other than Roy Hodgson and his annoying sidekick would prefer to see AGGER leave us before Roy is preposterous.

If he's indeed talking about Agger, then I pray to God he chooses to continue getting paid without playing until Roy is moved on.

The same goes for Jovanovic, Babel and Cole. The sooner Roy goes, the better.

[rafa4eva]

Errrno, he was sacked for taking on the board.

IMO, there were probably a whole raft of reasons for Rafa being sacked, I dont believe coming 4th would have kept him in the job, I dont think taking on the board was the sole reason either, im sure Hicks and Gillet had their reasons, Purslow had his and Broughton had his...so their reasons may have been many, there desire was singlular in terms of getting rid of Rafa....the irritation for me is that IMO Rafa being asked to leave was based on non footballing reasons which is the thing that has really hit me hard.....