Liverpool FC Forum

by **The Good Yank** » Sun Aug 05, 2012 7:38 pm

Just a thought here, not trying to stir anything up or cause a fuss. Did Dalglish make more money on his payout then he made for his entire career as a player?

by **Simari** » Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:52 pm

The Good Yank » Sun Aug 05, 2012 6:38 pm wrote:Just a thought here, not trying to stir anything up or cause a fuss. Did Dalglish make more money on his payout then he made for his entire career as a player?

Not stirring anything up at all mate. In fact, that statement really does put into perspective exactly what's happened to football

by **red till i die!!** » Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:38 pm

The Good Yank » Sun Aug 05, 2012 7:38 pm wrote:Just a thought here, not trying to stir anything up or cause a fuss. Did Dalglish make more money on his payout then he made for his entire career as a player?

i thought he didnt take any compensation when they sacked him?.
back in those days the players were on a pittance compared to what they make nowadays and if kenny did get the rest of his contract paid up then it probably would eclipse what he earned from his playing days.
on a side note though if he was around as a player now then he wouldnt be playing for us as we wouldnt pay his wages :nod

.

by **redalltheway36** » Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:59 pm

Thats why they got rid of him. theres no way he would put up with all this. Seems to me they said to rodgers if we give you the job we need to cut the wages and its obvious hes agreed. Bit of a yes man is old brendan.

by **fivecups** » Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:08 am

redalltheway36 » Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:59 pm wrote:Thats why they got rid of him. theres no way he would put up with all this. Seems to me they said to rodgers if we give you the job we need to cut the wages and its obvious hes agreed. Bit of a yes man is old brendan.

Obviously

by **damjan193** » Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:50 am

Kenny didn't take anything when they sacked him. He said the club will need it more than him.

by **Ben Patrick** » Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:36 am

The Good Yank » Sun Aug 05, 2012 6:38 pm wrote:Just a thought here, not trying to stir anything up or cause a fuss. Did Dalglish make more money on his payout then he made for his entire career as a player?

Why the question ?

What difference does it make ?

by **maguskwt** » Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:49 am

parchpea » Sun Aug 05, 2012 5:42 pm wrote:
ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Sun Aug 05, 2012 3:30 pm wrote:
maguskwt » Sun Aug 05, 2012 2:53 pm wrote:it is indeed a long-term project and we can't afford to be changing managers every season anymore. There needs to be continuity so we need to have faith in Rodgers. Rodgers saying we may need to look at the loan market is perfectly understandable... if we can't find a player that can fit into our system, it is better to loan players than make a panic buy like we did with Carroll...

whats has rodgers achieved to justify that `backs to the wall` type loyalty though? look at what dalglish has done for this club and yet he wasnt allowed 1 poor season (in the league), why should the wagons be circled around a protege of mourinho who`s won nothing but not around a genuine anfield legend who`s won everything?
rodgers has had 4 managerial jobs, in his first at watford they finished 13th after spending half the season in the relegation zone, in his second at reading he was sacked because results were so poor, in his next job at swansea he took them up via the play offs after finishing behind neil warnocks QPR and paul lamberts norwich and now he`s here. this isnt ancient history this all happened in the last 4 years.
it`s all very noble backing rodgers but what if he just isnt up to the job, apart from a few inspiring words and an ability to write 180 page dossiers he`s done nothing. this really is a critical stage in our history, with owners with a philosophy of keeping wages low and buying up and coming players undervalued by the market and with clubs looking at poaching our best players the wrong manager now and we could join the ranks of the fallen giants of english football.

Every new manager talks about it taking time to build a team and Rodgers is no different but in
reality you dont get time and frankly you dont need it either.

Football teams can be built quickly if you get the right players in but these guys buy themselves
breathing space by kidding us we have to buy into a 'project' scenario and keep it shut when the
team plays poorly whilst the thing 'evolves'.

Despite having a reputation for being a patient support I am not convinced the club has the
stomach for a long term project anymore (I admit I dont!) and the longer it goes
without meeting expectation (which will always be high here) the harder it gets to buy into
another rebuild job.

You don't need time if you can spend 200 million at one go like man city and Chelsea. You need time and continuity if you're the rest. Why do you think the mancs and arsenal fare better when they buy players? Because their managers knows exactly what they need and which direction they're going. BR is NESV's manager of choice. They need to support him with money and time...

by **desmdlow** » Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:24 am

BR will need time, time in terms of Seasons and not months. The way our owner played their cards, i think they settle for Europa qualification with less input of cash and determined to get the playing mentality right before plunging in more money for top players. It in itself is an astute strategy, provided BR delivers his promise and that indeed such way of playing is sustainable. However on flipside, are we the supporters satisfied at that ambition? We waited 20 years, how long more are we willing to wait? They have to weigh the consequences of some fans turning away and support other more successful teams. If they are willing to do so, then Liverpool will not be the liverpool we know. So do we still support? Dilemma...

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:30 am

The Good Yank » Sun Aug 05, 2012 6:38 pm wrote:Just a thought here, not trying to stir anything up or cause a fuss. Did Dalglish make more money on his payout then he made for his entire career as a player?

Im sure he did, if he accepted it. Great players like Rush, Beardsley, Barnes, etc were probably being paid low wages despite being some of the top players. In today's context, it won't surprise me to see someone as unproven as Carroll earning more than all of them combined weekly. You just have to look at Cashley Cole's 200k demands to see how the game has become a playground for the rich.

by **mart** » Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:33 pm

desmdlow » Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:24 am wrote:BR will need time, time in terms of Seasons and not months. The way our owner played their cards, i think they settle for Europa qualification with less input of cash and determined to get the playing mentality right before plunging in more money for top players. It in itself is an astute strategy, provided BR delivers his promise and that indeed such way of playing is sustainable. However on flipside, are we the supporters satisfied at that ambition? We waited 20 years, how long more are we willing to wait? They have to weigh the consequences of some fans turning away and support other more successful teams. If they are willing to do so, then Liverpool will not be the liverpool we know. So do we still support? Dilemma...

If we are spending 4 years to get back into top 4 and severely limit the wage budget, are we going to get those top players when we need them?

by **tubby** » Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:47 pm

If course not. We may attract 1 top player every 2/3 years to placate the fans (as we have done in the past Torres, Suarez ect...) but by and large it will be mid table range signings.

by **mart** » Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:17 pm

maypaxvobiscum » Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:30 am wrote:
The Good Yank » Sun Aug 05, 2012 6:38 pm wrote:Just a thought here, not trying to stir anything up or cause a fuss. Did Dalglish make more money on his payout then he made for his entire career as a player?

Im sure he did, if he accepted it. Great players like Rush, Beardsley, Barnes, etc were probably being paid low wages despite being some of the top players. In today's context, it won't surprise me to see someone as unproven as Carroll earning more than all of them combined weekly. You just have to look at Cashley Cole's 200k demands to see how the game has become a playground for the rich.

Its become a playground for the big clubs. Raising ticket prices, tv-deals, champions league, sponsorship deals, everything is done to make more money so its natural that the players want their share of the profits. If we are willing to spend 35 mill on a player you can be sure he wants high wages as well. We have been more than willing to push football in this direction. Other clubs have just been better at it.

by **ycsatbjywtbiastkamb** » Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:45 pm

mart » Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:17 pm wrote:
maypaxvobiscum » Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:30 am wrote:
The Good Yank » Sun Aug 05, 2012 6:38 pm wrote:Just a thought here, not trying to stir anything up or cause a fuss. Did Dalglish make more money on his payout then he made for his entire career as a player?

Im sure he did, if he accepted it. Great players like Rush, Beardsley, Barnes, etc were probably being paid low wages despite being some of the top players. In today's context, it won't surprise me to see someone as unproven as Carroll earning more than all of them combined weekly. You just have to look at Cashley Cole's 200k demands to see how the game has become a playground for the rich.

Its become a playground for the big clubs. Raising ticket prices, tv-deals, champions league, sponsorship deals, everything is done to make more money so its natural that the players want their share of the profits. If we are willing to spend 35 mill on a player you can be sure he wants high wages as well. We have been more than willing to push football in this direction. Other clubs have just been better at it.

thats actually true, we were one of the 3 major players pushing for the formation of the premier league, along with everton (their chairman philip carter became the `face` of the breakaway clubs) and spurs.
ironically the teams that have benefitted the most from the premier league era werent keen on joining it, the arsenal chairman at the time hill-wood was a old etonian establishment type who was dead against the idea of breaking up over 100 years of tradition and united werent that keen either (because they were sh*te at the time i think they were worried that us and everton would just become even more richer and powerful, we had dominated the game for the previous 20 years and with a successful manager in his mid 30`s and the likes of barnes and beardsley playing harlem globetrotters style footy that domination didnt look like ending anytime soon). chelsea were just trying to stabilize themselves in the top flight after just spending 7 seasons in the lower divisions.
20 years later and we are hanging on to our status as a top club by our fingernails.

by **maguskwt** » Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:58 pm

the apparent lack of or hesitation on spending by NESV can be blamed on our failures with Carroll, Henderson, Downing and Adam...

Liverpool FC Forum

NESV - OUR NEW OWNERS - Official Thread

Who is online