12 games no matter what? So if we’re still on 1 point after 11 games, you’d want to give him the 12th game?I voted 'Other' because I said to myself earlier this season that I'd give Rodgers 12 games, no matter what. I'd still be interested to see if he could turn it around in the fairly unlikely even he gets that long.
So he spent all summer doing that? He spent all summer talking to players without consulting the DoF about funds?Alternatively, a man who spent most of his holiday in the summer talking to 7 or 8 transfer targets across Europe and got most of them to agree to come here.
The board didn't tell him there was no money before that.
It was extremely embarrassing to him when informed he couldn't bring in any of the new players and really pissed him off.
It's the fault of the senior executives as much if not more than the fault of the manager.
Not making a change and just hoping everything resolves itself is, historically, not a particularly effective measure.
Doesn't work great with gonorrhoeaIt worked when we didn't sack Pearson.
12 games no matter what? So if we’re still on 1 point after 11 games, you’d want to give him the 12th game?
Wow, completely delusional.Absolutely, totally, 100%. After three or four games I said twelve games no matter what so am sticking with my promise. I'm also just against sacking managers after a small bad run as a matter of principle. If the standards of the last fifteen years (or more) were around in the 1980s, Alex Ferguson would have been sacked in the 1988/89 season.
Personally, I'm open to my opinion evolving as the situation does. But each to their own mate.Absolutely, totally, 100%. After three or four games I said twelve games no matter what so am sticking with my promise. I'm also just against sacking managers after a small bad run as a matter of principle. If the standards of the last fifteen years (or more) were around in the 1980s, Alex Ferguson would have been sacked in the 1988/89 season.
Quite. If Rodgers rattles off 3-4 wins in a row I'll be inclined to put my pitchfork down for a bit.Personally, I'm open to my opinion evolving as the situation does. But each to their own mate.
The story I read said that Rodgers had paid 232 mill for players and not one of them were in his selected 11 starters - and then he had the audacity to complain about not getting money from 'Top'.Didn't someone post that he had been given £225million, but mostly spent it on crap he cannot get rid of?
Yet he publicly slags the board off for not giving him any money?
Seriously? Is Susan Whelan going to come out and hover her thumb over him like Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator?
Wow, completely delusional.
Are you Brendan Rodgers?
P | Pld | Pts | |
1 | Liverpool | 16 | 39 |
2 | Chelsea | 17 | 35 |
3 | Arsenal | 17 | 33 |
4 | Nottm F | 17 | 31 |
5 | Bournemouth | 17 | 28 |
6 | Aston Villa | 17 | 28 |
7 | Manchester C | 17 | 27 |
8 | Newcastle | 17 | 26 |
9 | Fulham | 17 | 25 |
10 | Brighton | 17 | 25 |
11 | Tottenham | 17 | 23 |
12 | Brentford | 17 | 23 |
13 | Manchester U | 17 | 22 |
14 | West Ham | 17 | 20 |
15 | Everton | 16 | 16 |
16 | Palace | 17 | 16 |
17 | Leicester | 17 | 14 |
18 | Wolves | 17 | 12 |
19 | Ipswich | 17 | 12 |
20 | Southampton | 17 | 6 |