The Roy Hodgson Thread

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Link please. As far as I saw he said the opposite. He said he's here for the long term and he has provisions in his contract.

 

Here you go NN. Ok it's not directly from the BBC but on their gossip page and indeed from the Daily Fail. But make of it what you will.

 

Roy Hodgson urges Liverpool to speed up search for new owners | Mail Online

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Clearly wrong, Dalglish was. But Dalglish isn't a yes man, and as such they refused to consider him. Instead we ended up with a manager who under normal circumstances would not be considered for the job.

 

 

 

Wrong again, Hodgson is on a three-year contract.

 

My bad on the length of contract, i just thought i'd read somewhere it was a 2 year contract.

 

Have you not thought that Kenny might not have been the right man for the job at hand ? He would definitely be a favourite with the fans as we all love the bloke, but he hasn't been in management for ages and i'm sure that would have been a concern.

[Paul]

It's hardly surprising that a man who uses the term "bullshit" (or variations on it) three times in one article doesn't appreciate the (not so) subtle difference between being a yes man and a diplomat.

[Menc]

I personally think Roy is just a stop gap until other issues are sorted out and he himself has said so. I think under the circumstances it's a shrewd move on behalf of the club. We will have greater things to look forward to in the future but we might have to endure some pain along the way, all part and parcel of being a fan.

 

I don’t really understand this “stop-gap”, “steady hand” stuff that’s getting listed as one of Hodgson’s plus points though.

 

Firstly, as Cardie said, there’s a list of managers with similar or better records to Hodgson who were available without compensation payments.

 

Secondly, I’m not sure being a “steady hand” constitutes. A steady hand in this instance would surely be a manager who’ll manage to get us into the top four with no fuss. I’m confident that Hodgson won’t create any fuss, but I’m not confident that he’ll get us into the top 4.

 

Surely a manager with a stronger record and reputation would have been a better choice? Aside from the fact that they’d probably stand a stronger chance of getting us into the top 4, a manager is an asset to a club. We’ve paid £8.5 million to replace Benitez with Hodgson and I’m not sure that it’s anything approaching an upgrade.

 

It would all make more sense to me if Hodgson had been put on a short term contract pending the sale of the club as he’s less likely to make a fuss than Benitez, but instead the likelihood is that new owners will still want to sack Hodgson and cost themselves, or more likely the club, further compensation payments in the process. It’s all very odd.

[Captain]

My bad on the length of contract, i just thought i'd read somewhere it was a 2 year contract.

 

Have you not thought that Kenny might not have been the right man for the job at hand ? He would definitely be a favourite with the fans as we all love the bloke, but he hasn't been in management for ages and i'm sure that would have been a concern.

 

My point was that he made himself available as a short term solution, in direct response to what you wrote.

 

Whether he would have ended up a success is anyone's guess, just like it is with any manager. But I didn't want Hodgson, and neither did almost anyone else on here.

 

Imo Kenny's a much better candidate than Hodgson, and the reasons for giving Hodgson the job has fuck all to do with football.

[Dicko]

It's hardly surprising that a man who uses the term "bullshit" (or variations on it) three times in one article doesn't appreciate the (not so) subtle difference between being a yes man and a diplomat.

 

That of course assumes that the people he's supposed to be diplomatic to are worth the effort.

 

I would say the board and the media aren't.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

My point was that he made himself available as a short term solution, in direct response to what you wrote.

 

Whether he would have ended up a success is anyone's guess, just like it is with any manager. But I didn't want Hodgson, and neither did almost anyone else on here.

 

Imo Kenny's a much better candidate than Hodgson, and the reasons for giving Hodgson the job has fuck all to do with football.

 

That's a huge injustice to Hodgson imo considering Kenny hasn't been in management since 2000.

[diego]

Broughton said that one of the reasons he and Purslow appointed Hodgson was that he was not looking for more money to bring in new players. It was also clear from the exchanges at the Press Conference that Hodgson had agreed not to involve himself in "politics" i.e. ownership and money issues. In context, the message was that Hodson had rolled over in the interviews and said whatever he needed to say to get the job.

 

Within 36 hours - under relatively little pressure from fans and the media - he was calling for the owners to be replaced before the new season so that new owners would provide susbtantial funds for new players.

Rafa was called "a toxic influence on the club" by a sneering poster on here for far less than that.

 

We were also told by Broughton and the rest that Hodgson would be a sure pair of hands who would steady the ship. Specifically his experience, record and general gravitas would influence Gerrard, Torres and other players to stay.

 

Within 24 hours Hodgson admitted that he had tried to "sell" himself to Gerrard, Carragher and Torres. He reported that at least in Gerard's case he got a replay of the familiar line that he wanted to see an infusion of new high quality players (which is also what Torres has been saying for some time). Hodgson sounded far from certain that his sales pitch - or grovelling - to the players had worked. So much for his fabled gravitas.

[King Emlyn]

He was appointed by Barclay's capital, there are countless quotes on the internet from the man himself saying as much, which - for me - changes the entire dynamic.

 

:

 

Well now i am confused, because he was asked the question directly in the Echo the day Hodgson was named manager and he said he was appointed by the owners not the Banks

[Drewas]

Hodgson is only here so we (the fans) have someone to blame when the clubs assets are sold and we are struggling mid table (if lucky).

 

Thats why Kenny wasnt considered for the role because he like Rafa (but for different reasons) will do whats best for LFC.

[Cardie]

Well now i am confused, because he was asked the question directly in the Echo the day Hodgson was named manager and he said he was appointed by the owners not the Banks

 

In Broughtons defence he is a lying Chelsea loving cunt. It's instinct.

[Antynwa]

Hodgson is only here so we (the fans) have someone to blame when the clubs assets are sold and we are struggling mid table (if lucky).

 

Thats why Kenny wasnt considered for the role because he like Rafa (but for different reasons) will do whats best for LFC.

 

Asset Stripping makes no financial sense. We could sell FT, SG and JM and would only be able to play a fraction of the debt off and interest.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Hodgson is only here so we (the fans) have someone to blame when the clubs assets are sold and we are struggling mid table (if lucky).

 

Thats why Kenny wasnt considered for the role because he like Rafa (but for different reasons) will do whats best for LFC.

 

How do you come to the conclusion that we are going to be stripped of Assets ?

It hasn't happened so far.

 

I for one think Hodgson will get us higher than mid table with the squad at hand and believe we could easily finish in the top 6 and even have a shot at top 4.

[sir roger]

How do you come to the conclusion that we are going to be stripped of Assets ?

It hasn't happened so far.

 

I for one think Hodgson will get us higher than mid table with the squad at hand and believe we could easily finish in the top 6 and even have a shot at top 4.

 

Frigging Hell PB, I'd expect me & you as joint managers to get us in the top half with the squad we've got.

[Cardie]

Asset Stripping makes no financial sense. We could sell FT, SG and JM and would only be able to play a fraction of the debt off and interest.

 

you'd take between a third and a quarter of the debt off with those three. Hardly an insignificant sum.

[Section_31]

Well now i am confused, because he was asked the question directly in the Echo the day Hodgson was named manager and he said he was appointed by the owners not the Banks

 

I haven't seen that article mate but every other one I've seen has said he's a Barclay's appointment.

 

 

No offers have been made for Liverpool yet, admits club chairman | Football | guardian.co.uk

 

Owners cannot veto Liverpool sale - The Irish Times - Thu, Jul 01, 2010

 

Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton has insisted no price tag has been put on the club and the neither Tom Hicks nor George Gillett can veto a sale at this stage.

 

Hicks has been quoted as suggesting the asking price for the club could be as high as £800 million and they would hold out for the best offer.

 

However, Broughton - appointed by Barclays Capital - confirmed neither American co-owner can block a sale and that the highest bidder would not necessarily be the successful party.

 

"The process is well under way. The owners have stepped aside, stepped down. I'm overseeing the process and Barclays Capital are running the process," said the British Airways chairman today.

 

"The owners can't block the sale of the club. I read all too frequently numbers being floated about in the media, normally associated with Tom Hicks' name. I would like to make it clear there is no number. There is no base line.

 

"This is a willing buyer, willing seller auction. We will do a deal with what we consider to be the best bidder.

 

"The best bidder may not be the highest bidder. It's about more than just money. It's about stadium development, the team and the whole piece.

 

"Once we've been through the process, the best bidder gets it."

 

Despite this, Broughton admitted there have been no bids as yet but he expects some within weeks before the process continuing with a view to a final sale being completed by August or September.

 

"There have not been any offers at this stage," he said, having unveiled Roy Hodgson as the new Anfield manager. "There haven't been any offers to turn down and I wouldn't have expected there to have been at this stage.

 

"There are a number of interested parties but there's no specific deadline on it.

 

"We are looking to the middle of July-ish for the first round of bids but that's not a final stage - that's a first entry through.

 

"We're hopeful - and I wouldn't put it any stronger than that - that a deal can be done by the end of the transfer season.

 

"That was always from the outset a hope rather than necessarily an expectation, because these things can take time.

 

"We are on course, pretty well, with where we would have expected to be."

 

When meeting the press for the first time as Liverpool boss this afternoon, the 62-year-old Hodgson, who took over from Rafael Benitez this morning, said: “This is a very big club, a club with enormous tradition and when the club is sold it will get stronger rather than weaker.

 

“My priority is to try to get the team doing better than last season and get them back into the Champions League spots.”

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Frigging Hell PB, I'd expect me & you as joint managers to get us in the top half with the squad we've got.

 

That is why i'm saying fans who say we'll be mid table if we are lucky are going way OTT. It won#t be hard to improve on last seasons mess and as long as we can keep the big players like SG and FT we will do better imo. Plus i reckon Hodgson will strengthen some areas which we are weak in and a top 4 finish isn't exactly a pipe dream.

[King Emlyn]

I haven't seen that article mate but every other one I've seen has said he's a Barclay's appointment.

 

 

No offers have been made for Liverpool yet, admits club chairman | Football | guardian.co.uk

 

Owners cannot veto Liverpool sale - The Irish Times - Thu, Jul 01, 2010

Here you go mate

 

Liverpool Echo - Liverpool FC - Roy Hodgson was a step we had to take, says Liverpool FC chairman Martin Broughton

[WaltonRed]

Champions

[Section_31]

Here you go mate

 

Liverpool Echo - Liverpool FC - Roy Hodgson was a step we had to take, says Liverpool FC chairman Martin Broughton

 

Cheers mate, fair enough, although I honestly think there's more going on than meets the eye here, G&H are far too detached from the situation to have made that appointment alone IMO, I wouldn't bet against some friendly pressure having been applied by the banks. I honestly don't think they're in control of this current process, and the only reason that's not being shouted from the rooftops is to avoid driving down the price by highlighting their no doubt dire financial situation.

[King Emlyn]

Cheers mate, fair enough, although I honestly think there's more going on than meets the eye here, G&H are far too detached from the situation to have made that appointment alone IMO, I wouldn't bet against some friendly pressure having been applied by the banks. I honestly don't think they're in control of this current process, and the only reason that's not being shouted from the rooftops is to avoid driving down the price by highlighting their no doubt dire financial situation.

I sincerely hope you're right; in fairness you usually are.

[Delmar]

It's hardly surprising that a man who uses the term "bullshit" (or variations on it) three times in one article doesn't appreciate the (not so) subtle difference between being a yes man and a diplomat.

 

Trust me, even diplomats use way worse words than bullshit. We will see in due course whether Hodgson is a yes man or not.

[piscinin]

He was appointed by Barclay's capital, there are countless quotes on the internet from the man himself saying as much, which - for me - changes the entire dynamic.

 

Interestingly, this is the definiation of administration:

 

I seriously doubt there are ANY quotes on the internet of him saying he was appointed by barclays, because quite simply they have no legal basis for doing so. We are not in administration. Entering administration is a matter of public record. There is nothing on the public record.

 

That being said, Did Barclays say when offered the chance of the contract to sell us say, "You need someone credible heading this up, you don't have anyone credible on staff?". Too right they did. Did they suggest Broughton? Let's hope so because it's obvious from his vocabulary alone that he's a proper executive, not a seat of the pants, bluff and bluster operator like the last guy we had calling the shots on a sale. THAT contrast is what changes the dynamics for me. He's too constrained by his fiduciary responsibilities, the T&Cs of the agreement with barclays and his reputation for anything else to hold to much sway IMO.

 

That being said, none of that protects us from Tom Hicks doing crazy shit at the end of the process. Something he has a habit of doing.

[Section_31]

I seriously doubt there are ANY quotes on the internet of him saying he was appointed by barclays, because quite simply they have no legal basis for doing so. We are not in administration. Entering administration is a matter of public record. There is nothing on the public record.

 

That being said, Did Barclays say when offered the chance of the contract to sell us say, "You need someone credible heading this up, you don't have anyone credible on staff?". Too right they did. Did they suggest Broughton? Let's hope so because it's obvious from his vocabulary alone that he's a proper executive, not a seat of the pants, bluff and bluster operator like the last guy we had calling the shots on a sale. THAT contrast is what changes the dynamics for me. He's too constrained by his fiduciary responsibilities, the T&Cs of the agreement with barclays and his reputation for anything else to hold to much sway IMO.

 

That being said, none of that protects us from Tom Hicks doing crazy shit at the end of the process. Something he has a habit of doing.

 

Repped for the word fiduciary.

 

As for Hicks, I personally think that ship has sailed. To all intents and purposes the club is being run by banks and business people now, proper business people - that's not to say they should be trusted, not by any stretch, but they're certainly capable of not allowing their professional reputations to be shat on by the absolute joke of a man that is Hicks the way the likes of Parry did.

 

As you say, Broughton's a pro - whatever else he may be - he's a pro, and he will be determined to find a buyer for the club. These people live and die by their reputations, and I seriously doubt he'd spout anything like what he said unless he was pretty certain he wouldn't be left holding his dick.

 

The only issue now is who those owners will be.

 

As for Roy, as I said earlier I think he was chosen because he's flavour of the month, Broughton's comments about the media 'approving of Rafa's departure' tell me that, he may also be a short term appointment - something which won't bother Broughton either as he will be gone as soon as the sale is concluded.

 

By September, everybody at the club above player level could conceivably be gone.

[piscinin]

Trust me, even diplomats use way worse words than bullshit. We will see in due course whether Hodgson is a yes man or not.

 

He's not a yes man. He's smart enough not to put himself in a position where it becomes necessary to be a yes man. Take the example of the transfer budget and his interview. A yes man would have asked about it been told he's getting bugger all and to be happy about it and would have agreed. He made a deliberate, conscious decision to not even mention it. Not a big difference in practical terms but it's significant I think. One of his players called him a conflict avoider and I think that's a far better characterization of how he has carried himself so far.

 

I only hope when it becomes necessary he can be equally subtle in making sure footballing priorities aren't overly diluted.