Are Kenny Dalglish and Liverpool Done?

PhlegmyMoses

Yet again another person compares Dalglish to Fergie in the early days. Jesus wept. There is no comparison between the two situations no matter what angle you look at it - the state of the clubs at the time of taking over, their relative managerial abilities, the completely different footballing landscapes that existed now and then. The same argument was used when Rafa was struggling to get a good league run together and it completely hinders any meaningful discussion about their abilities as a manager because it suggests that it is possible for all managers to achieve what Fergie did, given enough time and money - this being one of the greatest achievements of one of the greatest managers ever.

Yakult

Seems to me like they aren't too bothered about the league. Considering 4th isn't within reach and we already have a Europa place, what else is their to play for? (other than pride). We still should be winning certain games mind you but I wouldn't cry about the league now or have a stupid reaction like "fire Kenny".
We have one cup and going good for another so I don't understand this thread. Premature much?
Focus should be the cup now and who the fcuk we are going to sign in the summer so we can fight for fourth next season. Either way, two cups (hopefully) and a Europa League spot is not a bad return this season given how it panned out.

Come next January, if we aren't performing then this thread might have a cause. Right now it makes alot of people on here look like fools who have little patience.

Einhard

plasmaguy wrote: »

Unfortunately, Liverpool don't seem to be able to choose a good manager these days, and most of them seem to turn out as flops eventually, and I don't see Dalglish's replacement being much better.

So you admit that you don't think Dalglish is a good manager, and yet don't think that it's correct to even debate replacing him? Somewhat odd way of looking at things.

SirDelboy18

plasmaguy wrote: »

Couple of points.

Dalglish is 7th in the League. If he was 17th, yes by all means he should be gone.

Ferguson after a good first full season, finishing second, it went downhill rapidly, the next season it was 11th, the season after, it was 6th I think, and the season after was no better. At that stage he was looking a major failure and had nothing to show after spending a lot of cash.

Arsenal, Newcastle and all those other teams are doing well because they were knocked out of all the cups early.

It was the same in Benitez time, he focused an awful lot on doing well in the Champions League and the EPL almost was an afterthought.

It seems to be very difficult these days to go all out on all fronts. Look at the disasters Man Utd and Man City have been in everything but the League this season, even they can't go all out on all fronts.

I just have this gut instinct that if pool fire Dalglish now, they will seriously regret it next year, when the new manager could well be worse, in fact more than likely will be worse. You will more than likely end up with a mercenary foreign manager, who you sign up on a 5 year contract at 5 million a year, and if they get sacked you have to pay the full contract.

But anyways, what do I care, I don't support pool, I suppose I should be laughing really at the fans who want Dalglish out, which I am anyways. Unfortunately, Liverpool don't seem to be able to choose a good manager these days, and most of them seem to turn out as flops eventually, and I don't see Dalglish's replacement being much better.

Firstly, there is no point in referring to Ferguson, the landscape is much different. Back then it was win the league or get a cup, those were the priorities. Europe never even entered the equation because of the ban, and when it did, there were no Champions League places etc.

Now, the Champions League places are vital to ensure the club can support itself, and continue to grow from the income which it provides. Furthermore the League Cup has no real significance anymore, and the F.A cup has too lost much of its previous standing.

This all translates to a system where winning the league or getting into the Champions League is the only relevant symbol of success for the top clubs, and more so when so much money is spent.

Ferguson had to completely revamp the clubs youth system, eradicate the culture of drinking. He finished 2nd in his first full year with minimal investment, came nowhere in his 2nd, won the F.A cup in his third ( which accomplished the aim of league or cup ), and won the Cup Winners Cup in his fourth.

The argument about competing on all fronts is a bit stupid also. Over the past few years there have been many clubs involved in the later stages of all competitions until the latter stages, with some clubs getting doubles of some sort. This year is the exception, not the rule. Furthermore, the exertions of Europe are far more taxing than the Cup. Arsenal were still in cup competition until very recently, and should surely be more applicable to your logic than Liverpool.

Then you pick out a 5 year contract on 5 million a year? I don't even know what to make of that to be honest. 5 year first time contracts for managers are beyond rare.

Your last point is that Liverpool don't seem to be able to choose a good manager. Do you realise that the club is not the entity who picks these managers? It is the owners of the club. And the owners of Liverpool have changed many times over the years. The people who appointed Houllier are not the same who appointed Hodgson, who are not the same who appointed Kenny. So they very obviously shouldn't be grouped together.

And I have already outlined the sense it made to appoint Dalglish at the time, considering he was a legend, who was going to save the club, and acted as a "beacon of light" among the instability. But it hasn't worked. He has spent too much and hasn't even come close to accomplishing the minimal goal of qualifying for the Champions League. Especially bearing in mind the fact that Chelsea and Arsenal were having relatively poor seasons which left a large window for Liverpool to exploit.

plasmaguy

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Yet again another person compares Dalglish to Fergie in the early days. Jesus wept. There is no comparison between the two situations no matter what angle you look at it - the state of the clubs at the time of taking over, their relative managerial abilities, the completely different footballing landscapes that existed now and then. The same argument was used when Rafa was struggling to get a good league run together and it completely hinders any meaningful discussion about their abilities as a manager because it suggests that it is possible for all managers to achieve what Fergie did, given enough time and money - this being one of the greatest achievements of one of the greatest managers ever.

Ferguson who cleaned up in scotland despite the big two, couldn't lay a finger on Dalglish while the two compete on relatively equal terms, and having at least as much resources. Utd had also some great players in their ranks at the time, such as Robson, Stapleton, Whiteside, McGrath and so on. Discipline was an issue, but even after he had cleared out the drinkers and brought in new signings, 4 years into his reign, he was still a mediocre manager at Utd, whereas Dalglish had already 3 Leagues and 2 FA cups in the bag.

Dalglish resigned from Liverpool in 1991 and Ferguson and Man Utd rise to become the force in the land, while Liverpool never win another League Title.

People who say Dalglish was a poor manager in the 1980s, know nothing about football, and since they know nothing about football, I'll just stick them on ignore, if they want to keep saying that Dalglish was a poor or average manager then, inherited a great squad (he had to clear out an awful lot of deadwood) and so on.

Ferguson had 4 years on the job by the time Dalglish left with similar resources and couldn't lay a finger on Dalglish.

Of course being out of the game for more than a decade has impacted Daligish, but there is no reason to believe had he stayed with pool back then, Fergie would have been so successful.

The simple fact is, Dalglish was one of the most succesful managers in Liverpool history, without a shadow of a doubt.

Einhard

Yakult wrote: »

Seems to me like they aren't too bothered about the league. Considering 4th isn't within reach and we already have a Europa place, what else is their to play for? (other than pride). We still should be winning certain games mind you but I wouldn't cry about the league now or have a stupid reaction like "fire Kenny".
We have one cup and going good for another so I don't understand this thread. Premature much?
Focus should be the cup now and who the fcuk we are going to sign in the summer so we can fight for fourth next season. Either way, two cups (hopefully) and a Europa League spot is not a bad return this season given how it panned out.

Come next January, if we aren't performing then this thread might have a cause. Right now it makes alot of people on here look like fools who have little patience.

I don't think people are "fools" because they are questioning Kenny's position. It's not simply a matter of basing one's opinion on where we lie in the league, but of signs of progression and, unfortunately, there's a growing numbe rof fans who don't believe we have progressed all that much under Kenny. It wouldn't be so much of an issue if he had had to deal with incompetent, antagonistic owners with closwed purses, but he has been supported in every conceivable way by the top brass in the club. He spent over £100 million on players since he arrived, and spent ift poorly. Net figures and the like fail to distract from that simple reality. On more than a few occasions, his tactics have been shown to eb naive and misguided, and his team selection questionable.

On top of this, he has come across as excessively defensive and narrow minded when it comes to the club. It seems that any criticism, from any source and however constructive or benign, is regarded as an assult on Liverpool FC and Kenny Dalglish, and responded to as such. His approach to the Suarez incident earlier in the season was, in my opinion, appallingly handled, and damaged his position, and more importantly, that of Liverpool FC.

I don't think Dalglish is the man to take Liverpool forward. He was a great player, and an excellent manager, but I don't think we can judge modern managers on past achievements. We have to judge them on the here and now, and on that score, Kenny is not achieving. I understand why you say he should be given another chance, but that risks dragging out the malaise that this great club have been in for another season at least. If he stays oon past this season, he'll no doubt expect to be allowed spend significant amounts in the summer, and I simply don't think he'll spend it wisely. So, we'll have another summer of either money spent unwiesly or money not available at all, and then another season of potential underachievment until a new manager is appointed, and we begin the rebuilding process in 2013/2014. I don't think Liverpool can afford to be so patient.

Having said all that, I respect your position. The thing that really annoys me about such threads is the amount of people who denigrate the support of those who disagree with them, with comments that call into question their ststus as fans simply because they do not subscribe to their particular message on an issue. That's not aimed at you, but rather those on this thread who seek to claim that those who think Kenny might have had his time are somehow not real supporters.

plasmaguy

Einhard wrote: »

So you admit that you don't think Dalglish is a good manager, and yet don't think that it's correct to even debate replacing him? Somewhat odd way of looking at things.

I don't agree with chopping and changing, and I wouldn't trust those who pick managers at Liverpool to pick anyone better than Dalglish, who is probably the best of a bad lot at the moment for Liverpool. Difficult if impossible club to manage to be frank, worse than Chelsea I would say.

Einhard

plasmaguy wrote: »

I don't agree with chopping and changing, and I wouldn't trust those who pick managers at Liverpool to pick anyone better than Dalglish, who is probably the best of a bad lot at the moment for Liverpool. Difficult if impossible club to manage to be frank, worse than Chelsea I would say.

]
So you're message is that Kenny is a poor manager, but he's the best LIverpool will get, and therefore they shouldn't even look about for a replacement? Not a particularly inspiring message to be frank.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

plasmaguy wrote: »

Ferguson who cleaned up in scotland despite the big two, couldn't lay a finger on Dalglish while the two compete on relatively equal terms, and having at least as much resources. Utd had also some great players in their ranks at the time, such as Robson, Stapleton, Whiteside, McGrath and so on. Discipline was an issue, but even after he had cleared out the drinkers and brought in new signings, 4 years into his reign, he was still a mediocre manager at Utd, whereas Dalglish had already 3 Leagues and 2 FA cups in the bag.

Dalglish resigned from Liverpool in 1991 and Ferguson and Man Utd rise to become the force in the land, while Liverpool never win another League Title.

People who say Dalglish was a poor manager in the 1980s, know nothing about football, and since they know nothing about football, I'll just stick them on ignore, if they want to keep saying that Dalglish was a poor or average manager then, inherited a great squad (he had to clear out an awful lot of deadwood) and so on.

Ferguson had 4 years on the job by the time Dalglish left with similar resources and couldn't lay a finger on Dalglish.

Of course being out of the game for more than a decade has impacted Daligish, but there is no reason to believe had he stayed with pool back then, Fergie would have been so successful.

The simple fact is, Dalglish was one of the most succesful managers in Liverpool managers, without a shadow of a doubt.

Your logic is so flawed. What bit of difference does it make what he did over 20 years ago? That's not what this thread is about so please stop referring to it. He's been nothing but a bad manager this season. His squad, regardless of what was earned from the Torres transfer, is worth well over £100 million. That warrants more than 7th place in the PL and a cup no big team goes for. That's not mentioning his off the field antics.

SirDelboy18

plasmaguy wrote: »

Ferguson who cleaned up in scotland despite the big two, couldn't lay a finger on Dalglish while the two compete on relatively equal terms, and having at least as much resources. Utd had also some great players in their ranks at the time, such as Robson, Stapleton, Whiteside, McGrath and so on. Discipline was an issue, but even after he had cleared out the drinkers and brought in new signings, 4 years into his reign, he was still a mediocre manager at Utd, whereas Dalglish had already 3 Leagues and 2 FA cups in the bag.

Dalglish resigned from Liverpool in 1991 and Ferguson and Man Utd rise to become the force in the land, while Liverpool never win another League Title.

People who say Dalglish was a poor manager in the 1980s, know nothing about football, and since they know nothing about football, I'll just stick them on ignore, if they want to keep saying that Dalglish was a poor or average manager then, inherited a great squad (he had to clear out an awful lot of deadwood) and so on.

Ferguson had 4 years on the job by the time Dalglish left with similar resources and couldn't lay a finger on Dalglish.

Of course being out of the game for more than a decade has impacted Daligish, but there is no reason to believe had he stayed with pool back then, Fergie would have been so successful.

The simple fact is, Dalglish was one of the most succesful managers in Liverpool history, without a shadow of a doubt.

Stapleton, Whiteside and McGrath all left within 2 years of Ferguson becoming manager. Man Utd had nowhere near the quality of personnel that Liverpool had back then, and thus obviously did not have similar resources.

plasmaguy

SirDelboy18 wrote: »

Firstly, there is no point in referring to Ferguson, the landscape is much different. Back then it was win the league or get a cup, those were the priorities. Europe never even entered the equation because of the ban, and when it did, there were no Champions League places etc.

Now, the Champions League places are vital to ensure the club can support itself, and continue to grow from the income which it provides. Furthermore the League Cup has no real significance anymore, and the F.A cup has too lost much of its previous standing.

This all translates to a system where winning the league or getting into the Champions League is the only relevant symbol of success for the top clubs, and more so when so much money is spent.

Ferguson had to completely revamp the clubs youth system, eradicate the culture of drinking. He finished 2nd in his first full year with minimal investment, came nowhere in his 2nd, won the F.A cup in his third ( which accomplished the aim of league or cup ), and won the Cup Winners Cup in his fourth.

The argument about competing on all fronts is a bit stupid also. Over the past few years there have been many clubs involved in the later stages of all competitions until the latter stages, with some clubs getting doubles of some sort. This year is the exception, not the rule. Furthermore, the exertions of Europe are far more taxing than the Cup. Arsenal were still in cup competition until very recently, and should surely be more applicable to your logic than Liverpool.

Then you pick out a 5 year contract on 5 million a year? I don't even know what to make of that to be honest. 5 year first time contracts for managers are beyond rare.

Your last point is that Liverpool don't seem to be able to choose a good manager. Do you realise that the club is not the entity who picks these managers? It is the owners of the club. And the owners of Liverpool have changed many times over the years. The people who appointed Houllier are not the same who appointed Hodgson, who are not the same who appointed Kenny. So they very obviously shouldn't be grouped together.

And I have already outlined the sense it made to appoint Dalglish at the time, considering he was a legend, who was going to save the club, and acted as a "beacon of light" among the instability. But it hasn't worked. He has spent too much and hasn't even come close to accomplishing the minimal goal of qualifying for the Champions League. Especially bearing in mind the fact that Chelsea and Arsenal were having relatively poor seasons which left a large window for Liverpool to exploit.

When he took over, they were looking down the barrel of relegation and were losing good players because of potentially no CL football.

What he has done this season, against that backdrop, has been nothing short of a miracle. To take one example, players like Carraghar and Gerrard never played in a Wembly final, nor did most of the team. To bring a team to Wembly and win a trophy, that immediately creates a platform for future success.

The EPL is very difficult. Look at Mancini, had 300 million to spend and still looks like being runner up, because it's a tough league, no gimme games, and teams like Stoke are as hard to beat as any.

4th in his first full season, 100 million gross or whatever, was always going to be a huge ask. The strange thing is some pool fans on here keep ignoring who they are up against, Spurs, Chelsea, Arsenal, who have as much to spend as pool, and more if you take the last 5 years.

Dalglish has steadied the ship, which wasn't easy to do, and it's pointing in the right direction now.

In any case, I am losing a lot of respect I had for many Liverpool fans. I keep hearing how they know their football, but many of them seems as clueless as those who run the club.

Liverpool was not a team built on instant success going back to the Shankly era. It grew slowly, second division title after a few years, FA cup win, couple of league runners up, the occassional league title win, and eventually breaking into Europe. Their dominance grew slowly.

Tired of listening to pool fans who want EPL success or top 4 finish now and who will hire and fire until they get it. It's them who invent excuses to get Dalglish the sack.

Supporters who want instant success are not real fans. Real fans stick with their team and manager through thick and thin.

monkey9

22 pages! Good stuff!!

Will I Amnt

plasmaguy wrote: »

What he has done this season, against that backdrop, has been nothing short of a miracle.

Are you being serious?

plasmaguy

SirDelboy18 wrote: »

Stapleton, Whiteside and McGrath all left within 2 years of Ferguson becoming manager. Man Utd had nowhere near the quality of personnel that Liverpool had back then, and thus obviously did not have similar resources.

Dalglish's signings were far better than Fergusons, that's one example why they remained a power under Dalglish.

McGrath was an outstanding central defender, the best in England at the time. He kep Ian Rush scoreless in 17 Man Utd v Liverpool clashes, and Rush's first goal against Utd came, after McGrath had left.

Stapleton was an excellent scorer, and Mark Hughes also a very good player.

To say Utd hadn't outstanding players is more of the usual tripe.

plasmaguy

cambo2008 wrote: »

Are you being serious?

Ignored.

PhlegmyMoses

plasmaguy wrote: »

Ferguson who cleaned up in scotland despite the big two, couldn't lay a finger on Dalglish while the two compete on relatively equal terms, and having at least as much resources. Utd had also some great players in their ranks at the time, such as Robson, Stapleton, Whiteside, McGrath and so on. Discipline was an issue, but even after he had cleared out the drinkers and brought in new signings, 4 years into his reign, he was still a mediocre manager at Utd, whereas Dalglish had already 3 Leagues and 2 FA cups in the bag.

Dalglish resigned from Liverpool in 1991 and Ferguson and Man Utd rise to become the force in the land, while Liverpool never win another League Title.

People who say Dalglish was a poor manager in the 1980s, know nothing about football, and since they know nothing about football, I'll just stick them on ignore, if they want to keep saying that Dalglish was a poor or average manager then, inherited a great squad (he had to clear out an awful lot of deadwood) and so on.

Ferguson had 4 years on the job by the time Dalglish left with similar resources and couldn't lay a finger on Dalglish.

Of course being out of the game for more than a decade has impacted Daligish, but there is no reason to believe had he stayed with pool back then, Fergie would have been so successful.

The simple fact is, Dalglish was one of the most succesful managers in Liverpool managers, without a shadow of a doubt.

Let me get this straight. When Ferguson took over at United they were on the same level as Liverpool, just because they had similar financial resources. A team who were 21st in the league, had a massive problem with players with big wage packets and small time mentalities and who had not won the league in 20 years were on the same level as a club who had dominated England since the early seventies and were just off the back of their 4th European Cup win in 7 years.

Football was not all about money then. If a player had a choice between United and Liverpool he sure as **** wasn't going to choose a team of also rans. Players were choosing Spurs over United back then ffs. United would have needed City levels of money relative to the times to entice the best players to United over a club like Liverpool.

Or appoint a great manager and give him time. This doesn't even take into account the fact that football is completely different now so it's very hard to compare the two situations in any meaningful way. The lengths you are going to to try to defend this strained comparison are hilarious. I'm not sure if it was intended but your assertion that when they had similar resources (which I disagree with, naturally) Dalglish did better than Ferguson suggests that Dalglish is a better manager than Fergie. To take this argument to its logical conclusion, do you think that if Dalglish had the same resources as Fergie now, he would take Liverpool to the top of the league?

Hannibal

plasmaguy wrote: »

Crap Manager?

This is a bit typical of the ignorance of younger Liverpool fans to be honest.

In his first time at pool, he won the double in his first season, scoring the league winning goal himself off the bench.

Won 3 leagues in 5 seasons, 2 FA Cups, a League Cup and more than likely would have won at least 1 European Cup if it wasn't for the ban.

If it wasn't for Hillsborough, he'd have been manager a lot longer, won more leagues without doubt, more cups and possibly a few European Cups.

Then went to Blackburn where he won another league and had a few runner ups spots.

Went to Newcastle and had them in the CL from what I remember.

To say he is a crap manager is farcical.

Also can't believe people think Benitez done any better. Benitez spent a sh*tload on the team, far more than Dalglish, and apart from a CL in his first season, with a team mostly inherited from Houlier, he won next to nothing.

Liverpool is a very tough team to manage, I think most people would agree with that, because of expectations of the fans and the history. The pressure on every manager is massive and sometimes they don't cope too well, such as Hodgson.

Seriously don't think sacking Dalglish will achieve anything though. Pool will probably end up with someone like AVB if it happened, as honestly, there's no good managers on the market out there at the moment, and if there is, it's because they were sacked somewhere else.

Benitez has a net spend of £60m over six years, Dalglish has a net spend of £30m in one year. There's a big big difference there to say it's a sh*tload more considering the time span involved.

Yes the Champs League was won with a team mostly inherited from Houllier. Luis Garcia and Alonso were integral parts of that team and also it was Rafa's decision to switch Carragher to centre back whereas Houllier used him as a utility player.
Houllier left Rafa with an aging team, apart from homegrown players Gerrard and Carragher the pick of the bunch being Hyypia (32) and Hamann (31). Houllier had sold Heskey in the May and left Michael Owen with one year left on his contract and destined to move on and also committed the club to buy Djibril Cisse for £14m.

What about Rafa getting to the Champs League final two years later in 2007? we were the better team in the final and were unfortunate to lose. Finnan and Riise were the only Houllier left overs that were in that team.

In the 2008/2009 season Rafa's Liverpool only lost two league games in the whole season finishing second with a record 86 points and all this while having to work with Parry, Hicks and Gillett. So your suggestion that only for Houllier then Rafa was a failure is absolute nonsense.

I agree with you about Dalglish but I'd also add that he left us in February 1991 while we were top of the league so it could've been 4 titles in 6 years. Dalglish has been out of the game for 10 years this time and he spent big on some players mainly on midfielders (Carroll £35m, Downing £18.5m, Henderson £16m, Adam £8.5m) and they have bombed, he's been unlucky with injuries to Lucas and Gerrard but also let Aquilani leave on loan while the team is in dire need of creativity.

I'd love nothing more than to see Dalglish succeed, because as a player he was iconic and in the top 20 greatest ever to play. As a manager first time around he was faultless but his iconic status cannot save him this time because we have been desperate and mainly in positions he spent big money to rectify.

Under Rafa we grew accustomed to winning and we always challenged whether it in the league or in Europe, and crucially we had pride in the team. Under Hodgson and now under Dalglish we have let our standards slip to the extent that a loss isn't a surprise

plasmaguy

THFC wrote: »

Your logic is so flawed. What bit of difference does it make what he did over 20 years ago? That's not what this thread is about so please stop referring to it. He's been nothing but a bad manager this season. His squad, regardless of what was earned from the Torres transfer, is worth well over £100 million. That warrants more than 7th place in the PL and a cup no big team goes for. That's not mentioning his off the field antics.

Random reading of the thread/post from you I take it? Didn't bother to look back over the context, just decided to plough in without bothering to check back?

Well since you're probably too lazy to look back, posters were arguing that Dalglish was a poor manager back in the 1980s and I said he was an outstanding manager.

A bit off topic yes, but that's what I was arguing.

It's you who tried to make out it was relevant to today, not me.

PhlegmyMoses

plasmaguy wrote: »

Dalglish's signings were far better than Fergusons, that's one example why they remained a power under Dalglish.

Of course they were. Better players wanted to go to Liverpool.

Will I Amnt

plasmaguy wrote: »

cambo2008 wrote: »

Are you being serious?

Ignored.

LOL
You're a precious little soul.
I've never heard such drivel come out of one poster across numerous threads as I've heard come out of you.
You say you're not a Liverpool fan but come across as the stereotypical deluded RAWK apologist that most real Liverpool fans try and distance themselves from.
I know you'll click to see this post

plasmaguy

Dotsey wrote: »

Benitez has a net spend of £60m over six years, Dalglish has a net spend of £30m in one year. There's a big big difference there to say it's a sh*tload more considering the time span involved.

Yes the Champs League was won with a team mostly inherited from Houllier. Luis Garcia and Alonso were integral parts of that team and also it was Rafa's decision to switch Carragher to centre back whereas Houllier used him as a utility player.
Houllier left Rafa with an aging team, apart from homegrown players Gerrard and Carragher the pick of the bunch being Hyypia (32) and Hamann (31). Houllier had sold Heskey in the May and left Michael Owen with one year left on his contract and destined to move on and also committed the club to buy Djibril Cisse for £14m.

What about Rafa getting to the Champs League final two years later in 2007? we were the better team in the final and were unfortunate to lose. Finnan and Riise were the only Houllier left overs that were in that team.

In the 2008/2009 season Rafa's Liverpool only lost two league games in the whole season finishing second with a record 86 points and all this while having to work with Parry, Hicks and Gillett. So your suggestion that only for Houllier then Rafa was a failure is absolute nonsense.

I agree with you about Dalglish but I'd also add that he left us in February 1991 while we were top of the league so it could've been 4 titles in 6 years. Dalglish has been out of the game for 10 years this time and he spent big on some players mainly on midfielders (Carroll £35m, Downing £18.5m, Henderson £16m, Adam £8.5m) and they have bombed, he's been unlucky with injuries to Lucas and Gerrard but also let Aquilani leave on loan while the team is in dire need of creativity.

I'd love nothing more than to see Dalglish succeed, because as a player he was iconic and in the top 20 greatest ever to play. As a manager first time around he was faultless but his iconic status cannot save him this time because we have been desperate and mainly in positions he spent big money to rectify.

Under Rafa we grew accustomed to winning and we always challenged whether it in the league or in Europe, and crucially we had pride in the team. Under Hodgson and now under Dalglish we have let our standards slip to the extent that a loss isn't a surprise

So suddenly net spend is important again? Honestly, I don't know which one to focus on here.

When I mention Benitez had a gross spend of over 250 million, people say, yeh but his net spend was only such and such.

When you say Dalglish's net spend was only such and such, people say, yeh but his gross spend was this.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

plasmaguy wrote: »

Random reading of the thread/post from you I take it? Didn't bother to look back over the context, just decided to plough in without bothering to check back?

Well since you're probably too lazy to look back, posters were arguing that Dalglish was a poor manager back in the 1980s and I said he was an outstanding manager.

A bit off topic yes, but that's what I was arguing.

It's you who tried to make out it was relevant to today, not me.

No, I have been reading the thread. It was mentioned earlier, but his Liverpool days wasn't the time period being referred to. But of course, if that suits your argument, fire away.

And I don't know how you can say that I'm the one trying to make it relevant to taday when I cearly implied that it doesn't matter one iota.

And if you're not going to address all parts of my post don't bother replying.

eagle eye

cambo2008 wrote: »

LOL
You're a precious little soul.
I've never heard such drivel come out of one poster across numerous threads as I've heard come out of you.
You say you're not a Liverpool fan but come across as the stereotypical deluded RAWK apologist that most real Liverpool fans try and distance themselves from.
I know you'll click to see this post

So if somebody disagrees with your opinion this is how you respond? I disagree with what you have to say and I'm not a Liverpool fan or apologist as seems to be the hip word in this thread.

When you post stuff like that its no surprise that people put you on ignore in fairness. Its what I'd expect to see on some of those ridic sites.

Hannibal

plasmaguy wrote: »

So suddenly net spend is important again? Honestly, I don't know which one to focus on here.

When I mention Benitez had a gross spend of over 250 million, people say, yeh but his net spend was only such and such.

When you say Dalglish's net spend was only such and such, people say, yeh but his gross spend was this.

Net spend is always important.

To say Rafa had a gross spend of "over £250m" is wrong, it was actually £231m. But it's implying he spent it in one go at the same time and had it all up front like say how Chelsea and City operate, it's untrue because Rafa had to sell to buy and often weakening the squad to strengthen the first XI with examples being selling Cisse, Bellamy and Luis Garcia to just buy Torres.
Another example is Rafa bought say Josemi for £2m then swapped him for Kromkamp, he then sold Kromkamp and bought Arbeloa for the same £2.5m fee he sold Kromkamp for. The total here is £4.5m, but its the same £2m or so thats being used to take one player, swap him for a better player then sell him to buy a better player again all for the same fee but it's accumulation is £4.5m rather than £2m or £2.5m.

Will I Amnt

eagle eye wrote: »

cambo2008 wrote: »

LOL
You're a precious little soul.
I've never heard such drivel come out of one poster across numerous threads as I've heard come out of you.
You say you're not a Liverpool fan but come across as the stereotypical deluded RAWK apologist that most real Liverpool fans try and distance themselves from.
I know you'll click to see this post

So if somebody disagrees with your opinion this is how you respond? I disagree with what you have to say and I'm not a Liverpool fan or apologist as seems to be the hip word in this thread.

When you post stuff like that its no surprise that people put you on ignore in fairness. Its what I'd expect to see on some of those ridic sites.

I asked a question,his answer was "ignored"
I didn't give an opinion for him to disagree with so you might want to read things before you wade in.

plasmaguy

Dotsey wrote: »

Net spend is always important.

To say Rafa had a gross spend of "over £250m" is wrong, it was actually £231m. But it's implying he spent it in one go at the same time and had it all up front like say how Chelsea and City operate, it's untrue because Rafa had to sell to buy and often weakening the squad to strengthen the first XI with examples being selling Cisse, Bellamy and Luis Garcia to just buy Torres.
Another example is Rafa bought say Josemi for £2m then swapped him for Kromkamp, he then sold Kromkamp and bought Arbeloa for the same £2.5m fee he sold Kromkamp for. The total here is £4.5m, but its the same £2m or so thats being used to take one player, swap him for a better player then sell him to buy a better player again all for the same fee but it's accumulation is £4.5m rather than £2m or £2.5m.

I agree fully net spend is always important, if you read back, it's what I argued from the beginning.

When I say net spend is important, people say, gross spend is more important. So when I say Benitez had a big gross spend, someone else says, net spend is more important. Hard to win to be honest, but that's the nature of these things.

eagle eye

cambo2008 wrote: »

I asked a question,his answer was "ignored"
I didn't give an opinion for him to disagree with so you might want to read things before you wade in.

I don't need to read anymore than the post I quoted but I did read your other contributions to this thread...........sadly.

SirDelboy18

plasmaguy wrote: »

When he took over, they were looking down the barrel of relegation and were losing good players because of potentially no CL football.

What he has done this season, against that backdrop, has been nothing short of a miracle. To take one example, players like Carraghar and Gerrard never played in a Wembly final, nor did most of the team. To bring a team to Wembly and win a trophy, that immediately creates a platform for future success.

The EPL is very difficult. Look at Mancini, had 300 million to spend and still looks like being runner up, because it's a tough league, no gimme games, and teams like Stoke are as hard to beat as any.

4th in his first full season, 100 million gross or whatever, was always going to be a huge ask. The strange thing is some pool fans on here keep ignoring who they are up against, Spurs, Chelsea, Arsenal, who have as much to spend as pool, and more if you take the last 5 years.

Dalglish has steadied the ship, which wasn't easy to do, and it's pointing in the right direction now.

In any case, I am losing a lot of respect I had for many Liverpool fans. I keep hearing how they know their football, but many of them seems as clueless as those who run the club.

Liverpool was not a team built on instant success going back to the Shankly era. It grew slowly, second division title after a few years, FA cup win, couple of league runners up, the occassional league title win, and eventually breaking into Europe. Their dominance grew slowly.

Tired of listening to pool fans who want EPL success or top 4 finish now and who will hire and fire until they get it. It's them who invent excuses to get Dalglish the sack.

Supporters who want instant success are not real fans. Real fans stick with their team and manager through thick and thin.

Again where does one start. Carragher and Gerrard played in the Millenium Stadium in finals. Lets not make a big deal out of Wembley, they still featured in the same competitons. Winning a Carling Cup hardly creates a platform for future success. Lets be realistic.

With regards to Mancini, if he doesn't win the league then he should be regarded as a failure also. He has had the time to build, he has had United at their weakest point of the past 6 years. He hasn't had any Chelsea to worry about. If he doesn't win the league then he has failed too.

100 million gross on top of what was many of the players who finished 2nd to United a few years back. Reina, Agger, Skrtel, Gerrard, Kuyt, Lucas. As I have previously stated, Arsenal and Chelsea were there for the taking this year and Dalglish couldn't do it. This will have massive knock on effects. Those teams will now have more money to spend, be able to attract better personnel thus continuing the cycle, pushing Liverpool further out of the money loop.

Dalglish steadied the ship last season. This season the club were very clear in their aspirations for Champions League football. Their clear aim was Champions League football. We have had various players/staff come out and say this over the course of the season. Under Dalglish they have not come anywhere close to their primary goal.

Again, why do you keep going back to the 70's and 80's which was a different era in every aspect?

Real fans stick with their team and manager? I certainly wouldn't consider the people who protested against Steve Kean earlier in the season not "real" fans. As a supporter people wish to see the best possible outcome for their club, and the majority of people, me included, despite me also not being a Liverpool supporter, would consider that amount of expenditure as warranting a CL place, end of. Dalglish hasn't even challenged for the CL place.

Will I Amnt

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't need to read anymore than the post I quoted but I did read your other contributions to this thread...........sadly.

I didn't give an opinion on the o.p so what are you disagreeing with?
I asked plasmaguy was he being serious saying what Dalglish has done since taking over is nothing short of a miracle.
Valid question is it not?considering the absolute outlandish madness of it.

Mr.Crinklewood

Will I Amnt

eagle eye wrote: »

l
I don't need to read anymore than the post I quoted but I did read your other contributions to this thread...........sadly.

Actually show me one post I made in this thread that is in any way derogatory or whatever it is you have a problem with.
Apart from the one silly picture,all my posts were debating a point in a civil manner.

Hannibal

plasmaguy wrote: »

I agree fully net spend is always important, if you read back, it's what I argued from the beginning.

When I say net spend is important, people say, gross spend is more important. So when I say Benitez had a big gross spend, someone else says, net spend is more important. Hard to win to be honest, but that's the nature of these things.

I think you have to focus within them numbers on a seasonal basis.
Rafa spent £231m over 6 years and largely on a buy to sell basis, Rafa also supplemented this by having big success in Europe with prize money and tv money available from getting into the latter rounds nearly every season.

Whereas Dalglish spent £110m in a little over one year, so judging by this Dalglish has had more upfront buys where he could splurge bigger amounts without having to worry about recouping money in the short term and this has proved the case.

plasmaguy

SirDelboy18 wrote: »

Again where does one start. Carragher and Gerrard played in the Millenium Stadium in finals. Lets not make a big deal out of Wembley, they still featured in the same competitons. Winning a Carling Cup hardly creates a platform for future success. Lets be realistic.

With regards to Mancini, if he doesn't win the league then he should be regarded as a failure also. He has had the time to build, he has had United at their weakest point of the past 6 years. He hasn't had any Chelsea to worry about. If he doesn't win the league then he has failed too.

100 million gross on top of what was many of the players who finished 2nd to United a few years back. Reina, Agger, Skrtel, Gerrard, Kuyt, Lucas. As I have previously stated, Arsenal and Chelsea were there for the taking this year and Dalglish couldn't do it. This will have massive knock on effects. Those teams will now have more money to spend, be able to attract better personnel thus continuing the cycle, pushing Liverpool further out of the money loop.

Dalglish steadied the ship last season. This season the club were very clear in their aspirations for Champions League football. Their clear aim was Champions League football. We have had various players/staff come out and say this over the course of the season. Under Dalglish they have not come anywhere close to their primary goal.

Again, why do you keep going back to the 70's and 80's which was a different era in every aspect?

Real fans stick with their team and manager? I certainly wouldn't consider the people who protested against Steve Kean earlier in the season not "real" fans. As a supporter people wish to see the best possible outcome for their club, and the majority of people, me included, despite me also not being a Liverpool supporter, would consider that amount of expenditure as warranting a CL place, end of. Dalglish hasn't even challenged for the CL place.

My last post this evening and won't be replying futher as literally this could go on forever.

Wolves sacked McCarthy based on a run of bad results. Didn't help one bit, if anything they are worse off. Had Blackburn done the same with Kean, likely the same result. If Liverpool sacked Dalglish immiediately, let's say tomorrow, with 10 games left, what good would that do? Hurry in a new manager? Give the job to Steve Clarke? Sacking now makes no sense.

Does sacking in the summer make any sense or asking him politely to resign? Don't think so either.

Liverpool fans need to just write off the remainder of this season and forget about it.

Expecting the team to win League Cup, FA Cup and top four in EPL, when the team has been depleted/missing Gerard, Lukas and Suarez for much of the season was always going to be impossible. Maybe pool should have focused solely on the league, and write off the cups instead, but I think Dalglish is of a generation of managers, for who cup competitions still hold an attraction, as opposed to focusing on the money side of football non stop. I for one am sick of when fans go on about money this, money that, money the other, and reduce football to some sort of accountancy game, it gets dull as dishwater after a while. F*ck the money is what I say, it's about trophies, and cups and wembly and medals and all that. That's me done for this evening.

Leiva

I see the ridiculous thread has got even more ridiculous .

There's lots of people on this thread really gone out on a limb to be as pompous and arrogant as humanly possible .
I hope for them that the team they support get some silverwear as there could be a lot of egg on face come the end of May .

Cantona's Collars

Just dipped in to see how this thread is going and see the famous delusional phrase "net spend",for a minute I thought it was RAWK.

Face facts,the man wasted £100 million on mediocre players.This whole "net spend" thing is Bull.Made up economics to justify the waste of money that is Carroll,Adam etc.
7th in the league & 8 points behind 6th place Newcastle who they have to face next week.Closer on points to the bottom of the league than the top.

Please don't sack King Kenny.

Lawrence1895

zerks wrote: »

Just dipped in to see how this thread is going and see the famous delusional phrase "net spend",for a minute I thought it was RAWK.

Face facts,the man wasted £100 million on mediocre players.This whole "net spend" thing is Bull.Made up economics to justify the waste of money that is Carroll,Adam etc.
7th in the league & 8 points behind 6th place Newcastle who they have to face next week.Closer on points to the bottom of the league than the top.

Please don't sack King Kenny.

Did you notice his face directly after the final whistle yesterday? He might walk away without even being sacked

Cantona's Collars

Lars1916 wrote: »

Did you notice his face directly after the final whistle yesterday? He might walk away without even being sacked

I'd say a defeat next week (or if he lasts that long), losing the FA cup semi final could be the last straw for him.

counterlock

Dotsey wrote: »

Net spend is always important.

No its not.

I'm not sure how to explain this any simpler. If a manager buys someone for 1 million and he justifies the value in the market then it is a good purchase. If a manager buys someone for 90 million and justifies this value in the market then its a good purchase.

But if the manager goes out and spends 45 million on two strikers who 1) can't take part in 25% of the season due to suspensions because of his behaviour and 2) can't fit into the system they are trying to play/control a ball with anything other than his head then these are not good purchases.

The proof of any signing is based on the results of the team.

Reekwind

zerks wrote: »

Just dipped in to see how this thread is going and see the famous delusional phrase "net spend",for a minute I thought it was RAWK.

Face facts,the man wasted £100 million on mediocre players.This whole "net spend" thing is Bull.Made up economics to justify the waste of money that is Carroll,Adam etc.
7th in the league & 8 points behind 6th place Newcastle who they have to face next week.Closer on points to the bottom of the league than the top

Net spend is a very useful metric that tells us a lot about clubs' transfer patterns over several seasons. Don't write it off entirely

It does however have very little application in this case. Most obviously, if you spend £100m on players then you expect to receive £100m worth of players - very few would argue that those players brought in have been value for money. Secondly, the vast majority of Liverpool's transfer income came from the sale of a single player, Torres. This was not a complete dismantling and rebuilding of a team. Torres had to be replaced, and he was, but other than Meireles, there was no other gap in the first team that had to be replaced due to player sale

So yeah, net income has limited use in this case but overall remains useful

Hannibal

counterlock wrote: »

No its not.

I'm not sure how to explain this any simpler. If a manager buys someone for 1 million and he justifies the value in the market then it is a good purchase. If a manager buys someone for 90 million and justifies this value in the market then its a good purchase.

But if the manager goes out and spends 45 million on two strikers who 1) can't take part in 25% of the season due to suspensions because of his behaviour and 2) can't fit into the system they are trying to play/control a ball with anything other than his head then these are not good purchases.

The proof of any signing is based on the results of the team.

Gross spend in a short space of time is almost irrelevant because it ignores what you lose. What if you spend £100m, but lose £200m worth of players? Should you be £100m better? Of course not – you should be £100m worse.
Net spend is a good guide, but even that’s affected by what you inherit (you will have a low net spend if you inherit an excess of saleable assets; if you don’t, you won’t). The overall cost of the squad when adjusted for inflation (and the XI that can be selected), along with the size of the wage bill, is what matters most.

On your point of "The proof of any signing is based on the results of the team."
Everton for example won the league twice the eighties in 84/85 and 86/87. The season in between they signed Gary Lineker and he scored 30 league goals and he left after one season, does this make him a bad signing because the proof is that they won the league either side of his signing?

redzerdrog

you would swear the money KK spent on players came directly from the lunch money of some utd fans they are getting so worked up about it:pac:

counterlock

The points your making are absolutely valid but irrelevant in the context of this thread. Using net spend to defend the manager is similar to using something as unrelated as a kit deal to defend the teams performance. :pac:

Dotsey wrote: »

On your point of "The proof of any signing is based on the results of the team."
Everton for example won the league twice the eighties in 84/85 and 86/87. The season in between they signed Gary Lineker and he scored 30 league goals and he left after one season, does this make him a bad signing because the proof is that they won the league either side of his signing?

No and I should have said that the proof of any signing is their impact on the results of a team.

Will I Amnt

redzerdrog wrote: »

you would swear the money KK spent on players came directly from the lunch money of some utd fans they are getting so worked up about it:pac:

mixednuts wrote: »

I see the ridiculous thread has got even more ridiculous .

There's lots of people on this thread really gone out on a limb to be as pompous and arrogant as humanly possible .
I hope for them that the team they support get some silverwear as there could be a lot of egg on face come the end of May .

monkey9 wrote: »

22 pages! Good stuff!!

Maybe click unfollow?
I know I'd be pissed off if it was about United,no point in moaning about it though.

Yakult

Einhard wrote: »

I don't think people are "fools" because they are questioning Kenny's position. It's not simply a matter of basing one's opinion on where we lie in the league, but of signs of progression and, unfortunately, there's a growing numbe rof fans who don't believe we have progressed all that much under Kenny. It wouldn't be so much of an issue if he had had to deal with incompetent, antagonistic owners with closwed purses, but he has been supported in every conceivable way by the top brass in the club. He spent over £100 million on players since he arrived, and spent ift poorly. Net figures and the like fail to distract from that simple reality. On more than a few occasions, his tactics have been shown to eb naive and misguided, and his team selection questionable.

Yeah, sorry bout that fools comments. Anger prevailed
I agree with what you are saying, big investments made and little of that has been payed back. Suarez, enricky, Coatez seem to be the only hits with Downing, Carroll, Adam and Henderson being misses. We have a good back bone and with a few more first team ready to play signings we would have a good squad with Adam/downing/Henderson being used for rotation, but how sure are we that he will make the right signings this time round.

On top of this, he has come across as excessively defensive and narrow minded when it comes to the club. It seems that any criticism, from any source and however constructive or benign, is regarded as an assult on Liverpool FC and Kenny Dalglish, and responded to as such. His approach to the Suarez incident earlier in the season was, in my opinion, appallingly handled, and damaged his position, and more importantly, that of Liverpool FC.

I just think that because KD lives and breathes LFC he can let it get in the way and thats what happened especially with the Suarez incident. Cant say I was all for it myself but if they wanted to show support for a fellow player who has being accused, then they are entitled to. After that its a little hazy To me so cant remember if much went down afterwards.

I don't think Dalglish is the man to take Liverpool forward. He was a great player, and an excellent manager, but I don't think we can judge modern managers on past achievements. We have to judge them on the here and now, and on that score, Kenny is not achieving. I understand why you say he should be given another chance, but that risks dragging out the malaise that this great club have been in for another season at least. If he stays oon past this season, he'll no doubt expect to be allowed spend significant amounts in the summer, and I simply don't think he'll spend it wisely. So, we'll have another summer of either money spent unwiesly or money not available at all, and then another season of potential underachievment until a new manager is appointed, and we begin the rebuilding process in 2013/2014. I don't think Liverpool can afford to be so patient.

Thats my worry, the summer window.
If he is staying, he will have to nail the signings, otherwise I fear next season it could be worse. But if he gets the right players in I think we could do well.

The board have the biggest decision to make, keep Kenny on and let continue building he's squad or bring in someone new who might start the same process taking more time. I just keep thinking about Rafas last season here and he's surprising depature. Just seems like jumping guns too quickly all over again.

Time will tell tho, if the top men feel he isn't doing the job then I wont argue it but if dalglish stays on I'll give him up to Christmas and see how we are doing.

Atleast me might have a great bench with all the squad players he bought!

JimsAlterEgo

Signed sealed and delivered after this weekend.

Xavi6

Even though it's from a few weeks ago, if this is true then Kenneth is fecked if he's kept on -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2109105/Kenny-Dalglish-told-expect-major-investment-summer.html

Liverpool's director of football Damien Comolli has warned Kenny Dalglish he won't be able to spend big in the transfer market this summer.

Dalglish brought in seven players last summer to add to the two, Andy Carroll and Luis Suarez, who were signed the previous January.

About £120million was invested in the squad, although almost £60million was recouped from departures, but Comolli does not anticipate there being major changes this time around.

willmunny1990

This article hits the nail on the head IMO.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/9166045/Liverpools-latest-disappointment-at-home-to-Wigan-highlights-Anfields-blindness-to-modern-failings.html

“There’s a word we have been using for the last 12 months,” managing director Ian Ayre said last week.

“Unity.”

That is all well and good, but here is another one the club better get used to if they do not accept, confront and deal more urgently with the problem of their current place in English football. Irrelevance.

opr

Seen Chris Bascombe's name as the writer and closed the link. You might like this one Willy. He completely slated and undermined Rafa at almost every chance while he was at Liverpool but recently wrote an article entitled 'Chelsea need Rafa Benitez's tactical genius to clean up mess'. I guess you hold whatever opinion you need to write a story.

Opr

counterlock

Some quotes from Kenny;

"It's amazing," Dalglish said of the criticism of his team. "You can pick out our league form and then you can look at someone else who has been knocked out of three cups, yet they take that as a good season for them."

I'm a bit confused by this, he is obviously speaking about another team (possibly West Brom or more likely United) but its an unnecessary dig at someone.

"We have to educate ourselves and maybe we have to not play the lovely football that we have been."

....because they have been playing samba soccer since August.

Full article here

Interesting to note too, this is not the first time they have played 3 games in a week. Apart from the christmas period they've done it three times before this year without any complaining from Kenny;

Arsenal 0-2 Liverpool Sat 20 Aug
Exeter 1-3 Liverpool Wed 24 Aug
Liverpool 3-1 Bolton Sat 27 Aug

Tottenham 4-0 Liverpool Sun 18 Sep
Brighton 1-2 Liverpool Wed 21 Sep
Liverpool 2-1 Wolves Sat 24 Sep

Liverpool 1-1 Norwich Sat 22 Oct
Stoke 1-2 Liverpool Wed 26 Oct
West Brom 0-2 Liverpool Sat 29 Oct