MCDERMOTT SACKED

[Eaststandman]

I still think the club could have treated his leaving a little more respectfully. Another "has left the club by mutual consent" a la Rodgers would have been far more fitting than a "sacking" after everything McD has done for us imo. In fact, had it been "by mutual consent" I doubt there would be so much hand wringing on here. We all knew his time was limited, given this is a results business, but we have no replacement lined up, there is constant specul8ion as to who will be coming in, therefore, and this merely unsettles the team further in my view.

'greed!

[Eaststandman]

^ lol what a cnut


Good post RoyallyFcuked

Why let the facts get in the way of a good story or opinion eh?

[Royal Ginger]

I still think the club could have treated his leaving a little more respectfully. Another "has left the club by mutual consent" a la Rodgers would have been far more fitting than a "sacking" after everything McD has done for us imo. In fact, had it been "by mutual consent" I doubt there would be so much hand wringing on here. We all knew his time was limited, given this is a results business, but we have no replacement lined up, there is constant specul8ion as to who will be coming in, therefore, and this merely unsettles the team further in my view.

Disagree. We're always complaining about "injuries" rather than fallings out, and the cloyingly happy propaganda that comes out of the club. Fair play to them for growing a pair and saying it how it is.

[Ian Royal]

I still think the club could have treated his leaving a little more respectfully. Another "has left the club by mutual consent" a la Rodgers would have been far more fitting than a "sacking" after everything McD has done for us imo. In fact, had it been "by mutual consent" I doubt there would be so much hand wringing on here. We all knew his time was limited, given this is a results business, but we have no replacement lined up, there is constant specul8ion as to who will be coming in, therefore, and this merely unsettles the team further in my view.

Mutual consent means "we're going to sack you if you don't leave, but we're giving you a chance to go first". Given McDermott has gone on record saying he'll never walk, he'll only go if he's sacked, its entirely possible they offered him that and he refused.

[West Stand Man]

I still think the club could have treated his leaving a little more respectfully. Another "has left the club by mutual consent" a la Rodgers would have been far more fitting than a "sacking" after everything McD has done for us imo. In fact, had it been "by mutual consent" I doubt there would be so much hand wringing on here. We all knew his time was limited, given this is a results business, but we have no replacement lined up, there is constant specul8ion as to who will be coming in, therefore, and this merely unsettles the team further in my view.

It wouldn't have made any difference at all to the discussion on here. The usual suspects would have immediately picked up on the ' mutual consent', queried its validity and then decided it was actually a sacking. At that point all the stuff we have seen would have kicked off just the same.

It s sad that a decent man who has committed so much of himself to this club has been sacked. It is, however, a sign of the strong leadership that the board has oft been called on to display.

[Royal Lady]

I still think the club could have treated his leaving a little more respectfully. Another "has left the club by mutual consent" a la Rodgers would have been far more fitting than a "sacking" after everything McD has done for us imo. In fact, had it been "by mutual consent" I doubt there would be so much hand wringing on here. We all knew his time was limited, given this is a results business, but we have no replacement lined up, there is constant specul8ion as to who will be coming in, therefore, and this merely unsettles the team further in my view.

Mutual consent means "we're going to sack you if you don't leave, but we're giving you a chance to go first". Given McDermott has gone on record saying he'll never walk, he'll only go if he's sacked, its entirely possible they offered him that and he refused.

Is it really - I thought "mutual consent" was the nicer way of saying "sacked" - if the manager leaves of his own accord, it's normally announced that he's resigned. I'm pretty sure Rodgers was "sacked" but the club said it was "mutual consent". But I'll bow to your superior knowledge Ian.

[Ian Royal]

I still think the club could have treated his leaving a little more respectfully. Another "has left the club by mutual consent" a la Rodgers would have been far more fitting than a "sacking" after everything McD has done for us imo. In fact, had it been "by mutual consent" I doubt there would be so much hand wringing on here. We all knew his time was limited, given this is a results business, but we have no replacement lined up, there is constant specul8ion as to who will be coming in, therefore, and this merely unsettles the team further in my view.

Mutual consent means "we're going to sack you if you don't leave, but we're giving you a chance to go first". Given McDermott has gone on record saying he'll never walk, he'll only go if he's sacked, its entirely possible they offered him that and he refused.

Is it really - I thought "mutual consent" was the nicer way of saying "sacked" - if the manager leaves of his own accord, it's normally announced that he's resigned. I'm pretty sure Rodgers was "sacked" but the club said it was "mutual consent". But I'll bow to your superior knowledge Ian.

Resigned = decided to leave without being pushed
Mutual Consent = Going to be sacked but agree to leave to save face / club agrees not to try and hold you to the contact and part on good terms.
Sacked = going to be sacked and refuse to agree to leave to save face / not offered the chance to agree to leave to save face.

Rodgers was pushed and took the hint.

[Royal Lady]

Oh right. Do you know that as fact then?

[Royal Lady]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/next-liverpool-manager-sacking-brendan-855990

Clearly says JM sacked him and was the hardest thing he'd ever done. Just like AZ said....

[Ian Royal]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/next-liverpool-manager-sacking-brendan-855990

Clearly says JM sacked him and was the hardest thing he'd ever done. Just like AZ said....

Oh right, yeah, it was stupid of me assuming you knew what you were talking about when you said you were sure it was said Rodgers left by mutual consent. Lols definitely on me for thinking you might have got somethign right.

[Royal Lady]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/next-liverpool-manager-sacking-brendan-855990

Clearly says JM sacked him and was the hardest thing he'd ever done. Just like AZ said....

Oh right, yeah, it was stupid of me assuming you knew what you were talking about when you said you were sure it was said Rodgers left by mutual consent. Lols definitely on me for thinking you might have got somethign right.

No. THE CLUB SAID HE LEFT BY MUTUAL CONSENT - which seems to suggest from JM's interview there, that it was a sacking but they used Mutual Consent to be nice. And I'm asking why they couldn't say the same about McDermott.

[Ian Royal]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/next-liverpool-manager-sacking-brendan-855990

Clearly says JM sacked him and was the hardest thing he'd ever done. Just like AZ said....

Oh right, yeah, it was stupid of me assuming you knew what you were talking about when you said you were sure it was said Rodgers left by mutual consent. Lols definitely on me for thinking you might have got somethign right.

No. THE CLUB SAID HE LEFT BY MUTUAL CONSENT - which seems to suggest from JM's interview there, that it was a sacking but they used Mutual Consent to be nice. And I'm asking why they couldn't say the same about McDermott.

There aren't enough in the world for you.

[Royal Lady]

You are seriously tiresome. Mr know-it-all.

OUT.

[RoyallyFcuked]

I just read all of that and it strikes me as a perfectly reasonable post and well put. Personally, I still think the timing of the sacking was a bit unfathomable but I take RoyallyFcukked's point.

Thanks, and to an extent I agree that the timing was a little strange, because who ever comes in has little chance of saving us from the drop. It probably should have happened December-January time if we were going to sack McDermott. Still, it is better than bringing someone in in the summer, as this way the new manager will have more time to get to know the players and assess who he wants and who he doesnt, and where we need to strengthen most. Overall, despite what he has done for the club, I think sacking McD was the correct decision (as you can tell from my other post) if we get a better manager in. He was simply out of his depth, and not only not improving but probably getting worse. But I was slightly surprised and disappointed that we didn't have an immediate replacement lined up. If Dolan is going to be our manager for the rest of the season then we may as well have kept McD. Whats more, if Dolan becomes our permanent manager I will feel very let down to say the least. But I am getting used to that after the season we've had.

+1

Good post

Thanks bud

^ lol what a cnut


Good post RoyallyFcuked

Hahaha agreed, and cheers m8.