If the unthinkable happened and Rodgers was sacked.....

[VladimirIlyich]

I know mate, I pretty much feel that way too.

 

I would just prefer it that he turn things around, thus meaning we won't have to go through another interminable period of 'transition'.

Yes,its preferable to the mayhem of the upheaval and transition of a change of management and coaching staff.

[Jairzinho]

Shouldn't come as a surprise really, not when you consider that nobody at the club thought to tell Kenny about the Suarez-Evra non-handshake and he found out two hours later from Geoff Shreeves live on air.

 

LFC: the football world's real life version of The Thick of It.

 

How we could do with a Malcolm Tucker at the club.

[KopOut]

If we had won against Palace, we'd have been 2pts from fourth. Is anybody under the illusion that if we had Suarez and Sturridge, we'd be a fuck load closer to the top positions? Rodgers hasn't gone from top young manager in europe to total fucking idiot overnight, and it irks me that some posters are taking our poor form and using it as a weapon against the manager. Are things shit? Yes, of course. Does that mean Rodgers is some imbecile to be patronised by people who know significantly less about the game than him? Well, I don't think so.

 

The players we've bought, despite my protestations at the time, aren't as bad as they're currently showing. Nor is the manager. I want the owners to show more of a cool head than some of our fans. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater will just set us back again. Give him some money for attacking players in January. We've got a squad that, with a few additions, can be one of the strongest in the league. We're missing some genuine top quality after losing Sturridge and Suarez, but that doesn't mean we don't have strength.

If the players aren't as bad they are playing, and the coach slash manager isn't as bad as he is coaching slash managing, wtf is going on ?

 

Also, your statement that we're "a few players away from being a top side" or words to that effect, doesn't fill me with any confidence at all, the club having spent millions upon millions at the start of the season on just that - in fact more than - a few players to strengthen the squad. How many is a few? Three ? Four? Five? Six?

 

In terms of strikers alone, three came in the summer. Balotelli, Borini and Lambert. If these players are not of the standard, wtf kind of transfer business is Rodgers overseeing? Borini may have come back from loan but he IS Rodger's man.

[RoboRiise]

If we had won every game we have played this season we would be top of the league- FACT!

 

Indeed.  If my auntie had bollocks, she'd be my uncle.

[KopOut]

If we had won every game we have played this season we would be top of the league- FACT!

Unfortunately no cookie for you, on account of it still being theoretically possible for another club to be top of the league.

[Iceman]

I don't want him sacked. What he did today, and for whatever reasons it happened, Rodgers did the right thing (but maybe in the wrong way?) by benching SG and playing Lucas and Toure. I do want him to play 2 up front though, and he has to do that against Basle or we will get turned over there. Lambert is not the player to pin our hopes on for the season, he is far too immobile, doesn't make the runs we need and is not clinical enough.

 

Nothing against Rickie Champagne, he is a good lad who tries his hardest but I would honestly rather see us with Ibe and Sterling up top and Lallana and/or Coutinho supplying them. I don't think that either of them would yield that many goals but the space and momentum that their movement and pace would provide could get us kicking into gear and the goals would start to come from all angles. The season is not over yet and with a bit of fine tuning and some fight, we could yet have a half decent one. 

 

Fuck me this cough medicine is good. 

[El Dangerous]

Unfortunately no cookie for you, on account of it still being theoretically possible for another club to be top of the league.

If i want a cookie i'll take a cookie!

[ritchie]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/steven-gerrards-liverpool-future-could-4719520

 

Looks like the Mirror are getting briefed again.

 

"It is believed Gerrard has been ­disturbed recently by a series of behind-the-scenes events, which has led to a cooling of his relationship with boss Brendan Rodgers. The failure to strengthen the squad sufficiently to be genuine Premier League contenders after the £75million departure of Luis Suarez to Barcelona is a key factor".

 

No wonder Rodgers wouldn't leave him out the side or take him off. The briefings against him start.

 

This season really is 09/10 all over again. 

 

With regards to Gerrard's contract it was poor timing by him to come out with that interview on the morning before 4 straight defeats.

[ritchie]

I cant believe the manager didnt know it was the 16th anniversary of Gerrard's debut. The whole club website has been pushing this annivesary matchday programme for the last few days.

 

Steve bates? Isnt he city's media outlet? Bit surprised he's running any LFC stories instead of whatshisface.

 

So what if it was the 16th anniversary of his debut? Rodgers made a big deal the other day of not picking the team - namely Gerrard - on sentiment. So why would Rodgers be arsed what anniversary it was with Gerrard?

[ritchie]

 

Despite the shite xerxes posts, Gerrard will know he wasnt going to be offered a new contract of £170k a week in what could be his last contract.

 

We dont know what he's been offered But I'd imagine he'd be looking at £100k a week in view of him being a club figurehead in any shape, form or other means.

 

If they've offered him £60k a week similar to johnson, I could well imagine he'd consider his options at that would frankly be an insult.

 

Surely though at 35/36 next season with his legs rapidly going he's going to be used a lot more sparingly if he stays. The owners are very big on not wanting huge wages on the bench. We need to invest big on a midfielder next season and attract a top player and that may cost the 140k+ a week Gerrard is on. It throws the whole wage structure out of kilt if Gerrad is on the same sat on the bench a lot of the time. 

 

Of course, the problem is we'll be unable to attract all our main targets and end up spending £20m to buy Shelvey back or something and then Gerrard will end up in the team every week anyway so his agent wants him on the same money. We couldn't have made a bigger cock up in replacing Alonso (a crocked Aquilaini), Masch (Poulsen), Torres (Andy fucking Carroll, although we signed Suarez to play with Torres) and Suarez (Balotelli). God knows who we'd replace Gerrard with.

 

It's not also just about money - Gerrard won't want to be sat on the bench. He'll want to start every week. So if the owners/Rodgers are saying to him to take a drop in money because you're a squad player then he's more likely to leave because of the squad status than the drop in money. He'll want the wage he's on because it gives him the status to play every game. It's not as if he'd go to City or somewhere and he'd be starting every week. 

[eeyore]

A lot of the mistakes he made were with the funds that they already gave him.

I don't think he should be given any money at all, and should be sacked now. Save the money for the next manager.

 

But is FSG have a long term plan with him then they better bloody give him money to sign a proper striker, keeper and DM.

 

But the signings need to be fucking scouted properly, something that just won't happen.

[ratcatcher]

 

 

 

Surely though at 35/36 next season with his legs rapidly going he's going to be used a lot more sparingly if he stays. The owners are very big on not wanting huge wages on the bench. We need to invest big on a midfielder next season and attract a top player and that may cost the 140k+ a week Gerrard is on. It throws the whole wage structure out of kilt if Gerrad is on the same sat on the bench a lot of the time. 

 

Of course, the problem is we'll be unable to attract all our main targets and end up spending £20m to buy Shelvey back or something and then Gerrard will end up in the team every week anyway so his agent wants him on the same money. We couldn't have made a bigger cock up in replacing Alonso (a crocked Aquilaini), Masch (Poulsen), Torres (Andy fucking Carroll, although we signed Suarez to play with Torres) and Suarez (Balotelli). God knows who we'd replace Gerrard with.

 

It's not also just about money - Gerrard won't want to be sat on the bench. He'll want to start every week. So if the owners/Rodgers are saying to him to take a drop in money because you're a squad player then he's more likely to leave because of the squad status than the drop in money. He'll want the wage he's on because it gives him the status to play every game. It's not as if he'd go to City or somewhere and he'd be starting every week. 

 

 

Im certain Gerrard knows he was not going to be offered £140k - £170k a week in a new contract which would probably be his last here. That doesnt mean he wouldnt be disappointed to receive a lower offer, no one likes doing essentially the same role for a pay cut no matter how wealthy they are.

 

But he'll also be aware of the club's current pay structure. The fact of the matter is, whichever way people want to spin it is, Gerrard has been the life blood of the club for the best part of 16 years.

 

He's a figurehead at the club and a respected player worldwide. He's also one of the public faces of Liverpool. In my opinion, that makes him an assett to LFC whether he's near the end of his career or not and that surely must equate to a substantially better contract offer than the likes of johnson.

 

To be frank, if I was Gerrard's agent, Id encourage him to seriously consider a move away from Anfield.

 

The lad owes the club nothing. And if the club doesnt value him as high, he's better facing a new challenge in German, Italy or Spain.

[ritchie]

 

Im certain Gerrard knows he was not going to be offered £140k - £170k a week in a new contract which would probably be his last here. That doesnt mean he wouldnt be disappointed to receive a lower offer, no one likes doing essentially the same role for a pay cut no matter how wealthy they are.

 

But he'll also be aware of the club's current pay structure. The fact of the matter is, whichever way people want to spin it is, Gerrard has been the life blood of the club for the best part of 16 years.

 

He's a figurehead at the club and a respected player worldwide. He's also one of the public faces of Liverpool. In my opinion, that makes him an assett to LFC whether he's near the end of his career or not and that surely must equate to a substantially better contract offer than the likes of johnson.

 

To be frank, if I was Gerrard's agent, Id encourage him to seriously consider a move away from Anfield.

 

The lad owes the club nothing. And if the club doesnt value him as high, he's better facing a new challenge in German, Italy or Spain.

 

He owes us fuck all but ultimately it's up to him. If he's not happy with the offer he's got then he's free to accept a better one elsewhere. I'd agree over Johnson but we don't know what, if anything, Gerrard has been offered. I'd agree if he's offered 60k he'll look at some of the shite on more than that, or the same sort of wage, and won't be happy. But if his basic wage is lowered then it'd probably be heavily incentivised to make that up.

 

Gerrard will be offered a deal. If the terms aren't to his liking he is free to find and accept better terms elsewhere. That's the long and short of it. 

[Original202]

So what if it was the 16th anniversary of his debut? Rodgers made a big deal the other day of not picking the team - namely Gerrard - on sentiment. So why would Rodgers be arsed what anniversary it was with Gerrard?

 

It's a pretty arbitrary date too isn't it? 10 years, 20 years, ok. But 16? He must have played games on 29th November before so it's a bit of a weird thing to make a fuss over and get sentimental about really.

 

As anniversaries go, it's hardly one to be arsed about.

[ratcatcher]

Gerrard will be offered a deal. If the terms aren't to his liking he is free to find and accept better terms elsewhere. That's the long and short of it. 

 

I believe that's what I said.

[ratcatcher]

It's a pretty arbitrary date too isn't it? 10 years, 20 years, ok. But 16? He must have played games on 29th November before so it's a bit of a weird thing to make a fuss over and get sentimental about really.

 

As anniversaries go, it's hardly one to be arsed about.

 

It just happens to be the number of years at the end of his current contract which is potentially his last.

 

Not many players get to 10 year anniversary with one club never mind 12, 16 or 20 so it is an achievement.

[Paco]

No wonder Rodgers wouldn't leave him out the side or take him off. The briefings against him start.

 

This season really is 09/10 all over again. 

 

With regards to Gerrard's contract it was poor timing by him to come out with that interview on the morning before 4 straight defeats.

how dare he not know we d lose 4 on the bounce after that.

 

he's more than earned the right to put it out that he wants a new contract.

 

he's given his life to this club and it will be a very sad day when he does leave.

[ratcatcher]

how dare he not know we d lose 4 on the bounce after that.

 

he's more than earned the right to put it out that he wants a new contract.

 

he's given his life to this club and it will be a very sad day when he does leave.

 

Some people have an anti gerrard agenda. They'll only be happy when he's not here.

 

The utter lunacy is proved by the comment that other poster made. Ill timed interviewed on the morning before 4 straight defeats, what a fucking desparate attempt at stupidity that comment is.

 

I never knew gerrard could see into the futrue!

[dennis tooth]

So that will be Reina, Agger, Carra and Stevie gone to be replaced by utter nob of bum butterred bum nuts quieter than a church mouse's whisker flicker on the wisp of the wind.

But no one can challenge then, none shall pass, REPENT! and that shalt be saved dont make no frictions rippin rogereligion premeditated predilection prediction by the fiction vixens tradition pissing amerilection mission.

[ratcatcher]

why did he need to chat about it at all though? he's the club captain so for me there was no need to go the press.. sure he wants a new contract, but since then all we have heard is negative things about the situation, don't think that helps. 

 

The interview wasnt about his contract. It was about other stuff. They asked him towards the end of it about his contract that everyone knows is due to run out next July but some people want to make out the interview was solely about this.

 

And just why the fuck shouldnt he answer a direct question about his position? If he'd said nothing, you'd probably be on here saying he's running down his contract to get one last big payday somewhere else or, holding the club to ransom.

[ratcatcher]

He's free to answer how he likes just like the club is allowed to offer what they see fit. 

 

 

Who told them he had yet to be approached about a deal? perhaps he could of just said nothing been's sorted yet but I'm hopeful to see my days out here..... just my opinion mind 

 

And who's suggesting the club isnt allowed to offer what it sees fit? No one. Not gerrard. Not me.

 

Who told them he had yet to be approached about a deal? Are you serious?

 

Interviewer; "Steven, how are the contract negotiations going? Your contract ends in July doesnt it?"

 

Gerrard; "No comment."

 

Interviewer; "So Liverpool havent started talks about a new contract?"

 

Next day's headlines "Liverpool yet to offer gerrard a new contract. Skipper free to talk to clubs in January."

[skend04]

Rodgers wants the sack, he's probably close to a £10m pay-off with his new contract. Why else would you bench all your new signings and then comment you chose the team because you needed quality on the field? He's a fraud and its a shambles that we couldn't turnover a Stoke side more convincingly after they'd been laid low with illness during the week. 3 seasons and £215m spent and you're playing with the squad you inherited. I'd rather transition with someone with experience than this prat.

[ratcatcher]

Didn't know you were Ian Ladyman or had the interview transcript, and can only presume you don't know what candid means. 

 

I didnt realise you were just a shit stirrer. Until now.

[ritchie]

It's a pretty arbitrary date too isn't it? 10 years, 20 years, ok. But 16? He must have played games on 29th November before so it's a bit of a weird thing to make a fuss over and get sentimental about really.

 

As anniversaries go, it's hardly one to be arsed about.

 

It's just bizarre as is Rodgers 'feeling bad' for not playing him on 'the 16th anniversary of his debut' and 'I didn't know', a few days after telling the media he doesn't pick a team on sentiment. 

 

What next; "it's the 18 month anniversary of Kolo Toure's debut coming up in a couple of weeks so i'll have to make sure I play Toure that day". Or "It's Markovic's birthday next week so i'll have to make sure I play Lazar against Leicester". It's not fucking playschool.  

[ratcatcher]

Pure comedy gold!