As with the Barry, Riera, Keane situation even when Rafa was given players actually on his list if it wasn’t in the circumstances he wanted or in the order he wanted he wouldn’t accept it. There is no way Rafa would accept a winger as an alternative to an AM/10. It’d be sofas and lamps again. There was lots of tension at Napoli it’s why he’s not there anymore.
To be fair, tiki taka was the flavour of the time circa 2011, but within a year was seen as having been largely countered. Even Barcelona had begun to move away from the ultra-possession style to some degree.
1 Like
Salah wasn’t an alternative to Gotze though. He was an alternative to Brandt.
It was and it was certainly a big part of why I remember having no massive objections to his appointment. I dont remember the decline being that rapid though.
I certainly cant remember at any point saying to myself that Tiki Taka was dead, especially with Pep still pushing a possession based game (an evolution of what Barca was doing I suppose)
1 Like
I don’t think it died per se, but it very clearly evolved - the 2012 CL semi-final was a bit of a watershed moment when Chelsea’s game plan simply assumed they would have about 30% of the ball, but were content to ensure that Barcelona’s domination of the ball was 30 meters or more away from their goal. After that loss, Guardiola left Barca and his style at Bayern would be clearly evolved. Enrique changed Barca’s style the following season as well, and defensive coaching in general really sort of altered to deny the short penetration passes that were the hallmark of the earlier heyday. Rodgers was really just following the trend of the time in trying to find the next evolutionary step, which turned out to be the more dynamic use of the ball, especially from turnovers, that both Germany and the Netherlands demonstrated at the 2014 World Cup. If there was a time when tiki taka ‘died’, it was probably that 5-1 Spain loss to NL in Brazil, where despite the scoreboard Spain dominated possession.
1 Like
Wouldn’t disagree with that. I just don’t think Rodgers knew how to actually install it into a side. When you look at his career he’s not really known as a manger that transforms a team.
1 Like
I would actually take a harsher tack, at least with what actually happened at LFC. Once he was out of the comfort zone of installing a well-understood system, he was lost. With LFC, that was obscured by just how phenomenal Suarez was at the time, but it was thrown into dramatic relief the next season. There was no clear idea in the structure of that side, just tinkering and sticking with what worked until it was obvious it didn’t. My belief in him collapsed after that Swansea game where tactically Swansea utterly dominated, it was only the talent level difference that allowed Rodgers to escape with a 1-0. Monk had pretty much set out a template on how to tear the 5-man defence apart, and Rodgers made absolutely no adjustments in the intervening week. May as well have given Van Gaal a paint-by-numbers kit, and he didn’t adjust it after that either.
My suspicion is that FSG had all but decided to get rid of him after that Arsenal game immediately following.
1 Like
Completely agree. I could / should have added to my post above I guess. He seems capable of taking a good side and getting it to work but seems to quickly run out of ideas. There seems to be a good first season bounce with him. But it seems to disintegrate after that. He is then utterly clueless about how to build a side, which is what we needed post Suarez. I’m watching with interest what will happen at Leicester this year but I’m not sure what the arrangement is there with identifying and signing new players.
Rafa was available and obviously keen, but I don’t think FSG were every likely to want to touch him with a barge pole, considering how acrimonious his spell had been.
Shame, as it could have worked. But I completely understand why new owner wouldn’t want to work with a lunatic (In the nicest way) like Benitez.
That’s just rubbish and based on nothing.
Rafa was a fantastic manager, and if he was given Salah he would have known what to do with him.
You can’t compare Rafa under Parry to anyone under Edwards ffs.
But not sure why its worth arguing, we have Klopp who is better than all of them. Long may it continue.
3 Likes
Yeah, it’s a shame. I too believe that it could have worked very well. But they must have been afraid of his reputation, which was in part misconstrued and untrue. With a set of rubbish owners like g+h, it was obvious that a top guy like Rafa would fall out with them sooner or later.
The counterpoint though is that he has fallen out with most of the owners he has ever dealt with (granted, he has worked with some of most difficult owners in the game). In FSG’s case, I think the expectation time frame that his return would have brought with it was wildly out alignment with their perception of the actual state of the club. If they had hired Rafa, they would have been presented with a shopping list of 3-4 players and X tens of millions to get LFC back to where it was circa 2009 in the next 12 months or so, and a manager with a track record of agitating for his vision, and fans who would back him. FSG were in far too vulnerable a position for that at the time, and it is clear that they saw the roots of the problem as being much deeper than a missing midfielder or the like.
3 Likes
I’m one of them, I’ve never hidden that. Always felt he has unfinished business here. I also wasn’t sure whether Ancelotti or Klopp would be better for Liverpool. In hindsight, it all turned out alright but there will always be a Rafa-shaped hole in my heart.
3 Likes
For us who are illiterate in financial languages, what does this mean for Liverpool?
Basically FSG (as a whole not just Liverpool) are valued at £8billion and are looking to sell a % of FSG which will result in FSG being publically listed i.e. you can buy stocks (similar to Utd).
It could mean a massive cash injection into the club.
1 Like
Correct, opens us up to dividends being taken.
I think it would see FSG buying more teams, similar to what City are doing.
I can’t see a likely scenario where it injects cash into the club. Private equity owners float a percentage of their shares on the market, and get paid as a result. It is almost the reverse of an IPO, where the company creates new shares and dilutes existing equity in exchange for cash in order to execute a business plan. This transaction has FSG selling a percentage of existing shares for value, more akin to an exit strategy.
3 Likes
FSG could easily take dividends now, there is no requirement for a company to be public to pay dividends.
2 Likes
I see a definite upside for FSG… however much they dilute their holding will be money in their pockets - a return on their investment and good stewardship.
I see a possible upside for LFC… new shareholders injecting more cash, could pay for Annie Rd, cover our modest debts, and generally strengthen the financial picture in midst of Covid uncertainty.
I could also see a possible downside for LFC… new shareholders might want regular dividends, and that takes money out of the club, and potentially runs the risk of a Man Utd type situation, if it goes to extreme, where the club is laden with debt and the shareholders are paid handsomely. It’s a nice situation for the shareholders, very profitable, but if we deal on this sort of basis it is very dangerous, as the long term strength of the club is diminished as it is hollowed out from within.
At present we benefit from the stability and long term planning of FSG… not here to make a fast buck, but they will legitimately extract a return on investment due to growing the value of the asset, not via dividends. If the new shareholders have the same sort of mindset, all will be well.
Potentially it could be good.
Equally, it could make us more vulnerable.
1 Like
The fact that they are floating 25% suggest they have no real interest in changing what they are doing, just taking some capital out across the board. FSM could still be the dividend engine. Given the track record of the people who make up FSG, a debt-driven payout seems wildly unlikely - and they could do that without the public shares anyway.
Frankly, I think it is all but indifferent for LFC at this stage. FSG partners still firmly in majority control - if there are any internal tensions about taking value of the table versus staying the course, this probably resolves them.
2 Likes