Brendan Rodgers Discussion Thread

I wonder if the hun boot would have been so inquisitive if it had been Lurch.

 

There's a good they/them, would have been more appropriate.

 

No danger should he or the club need to justify let alone apologise for his post match comment, that ratbag asking the question was trying to be a smart *. Give me this version of Rodgers over the vacant, head-in-the-sand ostrich we've had up until now all day long!

 

Saying that the 'buck stops here' over the Kuhn signing is ridiculous... NOBODY (sensible) has any issues with the signing, so if he did sign off on it or not is irrelevant... The problem is that it was the ONLY signing (barring a loan)!

If we'd brought the lad in as well as a few reinforcements, this would never be on the radar. Nothing wrong with a capped youth, brought in to develop into the team. But he's not the answer we needed to resolve our current dilemma. It's not fair on the player or Rodgers to put that on them. The BOARD needed to get off it's * and strengthen as Rodgers requested, or tell him they wouldn't/couldn't.

 

The Huns shred/barr press all the time over their 'tone', so * throwing anyone on their own sword over any of this *!

If it's inappropriate (I haven't seen/heard myself) then let the clubs internal structures deal with it. If anyone asks, say that's what we're doing and we don't discuss internal HR matters outside of the club...

* the Hun scumbag media!

 

The buck absolutely stops with Rodgers when it comes his signings, or lack of signings as they may cost him his job and us the title..

We need an overhaul of our footballing operation but some within the structure may survive, Rodgers likely won't if he fails..

There was also plenty on here and in the media who weren't at all sure about Kuhn, so not sure where you're getting that from.

 

Was there outcry when on Clyde 1 at the weekend at HT that wee Gabriel * (who ange tore apart) said "ibrox is in dreamland the bouncy is in full flow"

 

This for me.

The hit rate is far too low. It’s become so common that Celtic fans now just accept that we need to sign a bunch of misses for every hit we get.

It’s absolutely * wild how bad we’ve been over the last 10 years or so.

Your success rate in the transfer market decides how good your club is. Period. I see no effort to improve in this regard whatsoever, to the point we even appointed the chairman’s son to the job, and it’s been a * disaster.

 

Cherry on top would have been a wee pat on the head for her as he walked away.

 

If Lawwell was really on the money he'd have a new range of gift cards in the Celtic shop in time for Mother's day.

 

Mate, we signed a boy on loan from Norwich and Kuhn. We still didn’t address left back, goalkeeper or defensive midfielder. We left ourselves with one striker available when boys went to Asian Cup. We had one fit left back in Bernabei. Do you think Rodgers would have been happy with that?

 

Obviously not mate..

However, if he doesn't have the influence to demand what he wants then, ultimately its on him.. as he'll likely be sacked if we fail..

Can you imagine Ange, just sitting back and settling for that..

 

I keep going back to it though. Ange wasn’t dealing with Peter Lawwell. The whole club seemed to transform when he was out the picture. Now that was either down solely to Ange, and every other manager just can’t get through the our board. Or it was because Lawwell wasn’t in a position of power. I’m inclined to believe it’s the latter. A blind man can see where we need to strengthen, so I’m going to say Rodgers can as well, and he will have been telling the board this also. Both he and McGregor told the board we need quality. It shouldn’t be a fight to convince the bean counters. They should see where we need to strengthen as well and provide the manager with the tools.

 

Wish some Saudis would pinch him in the summer, while the "brand" is still fairly alive.

 

We all thought Rodgers would have demanded certain things to come back, guaranteed backing etc, especially after the last time working under Lawwell..

Turns out he's insipid much like his team's performances..

Do we need a massive overhaul of our footballing operation? Aye..

Do both Lawwell's need chased? Aye..

Has Rodgers been ineffective? Absolutely, team performances and in his ability to effect player recruitment..

It was a huge mistake to bring him back but tbf not many could have predicted how awfully we'd play under him. And even fewer would have predicted how little he'd be backed by the board.

If he manages to win the league I'd be over the moon but it would probably just kick the can down the road in terms of what's required to make us an elite thinking/aspiring football club.

 

Streuth!

 

I really don’t get what’s so controversial about calling it unacceptable. I’m not calling for his head for it. It was said in the heat of the moment, but he should realise how it sounds and apologise regardless.

If I said that sort of thing to one of my female employees at work I’d be reprimanded for it, as would anyone in a professional setting. It’s sexist at worst and unprofessional at best.

Should it be blown out of proportion? No, but it shouldn’t be said in the first place either.

 

Edit: I can see that your reply to me was below and so probably this wasn't addressed to me. I wrongly assumed it was, because it was directly below. Anyway, my bad.