Henderson publicly disagreed with FSG and said he wasn't consulted.

Henderson thinks FSG are good owners and good for the club based on his first-hand experience.

The cognitive dissonance I am seeing of people trying to handle both these truths of his today is amazing.

So for those struggling with it, here is how that works.

The owners of a business don't consult their employees on every decision. On this one, they should have, but not doing so doesn't make them bad owners - they simply made a mistake. They have made other mistakes. They will

make more in future. Because human beings are fallible.

I would much rather have people in charge who will make mistakes, hold their hands up when called on it and reverse the decision than have a Trump-like narcissist in charge who will double down on everything and refuse to

acknowledge they are ever in the wrong and apologise for nothing.

Could we do better than FSG? Maybe - but I am yet to see any owner in the Premier League who people would prefer or any alternatives that appear viable.

Do we want to roll the dice and land up with a despot

using the club, it's history and it's fanbase to sports wash their human rights abuses?

Their aim will be to always keep us onside because we act as their army, defending them from attacks online. Championing them for what they did for us. Highlighting how they are 'not all bad'

Is that what we want though?

And I think that is something we all need to wrestle with and think about.

What we want.
What our expectations are of any owner.
Are they fair?
What do we expect of them when they get things wrong?
Are we okay with our history and image being used for sports washing?

And it's a BIG no on that last one from me.

Btw - Hendo's program notes for those who have not read them. https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/first-team/432022-jordan-henderson-programme-notes-newcastle-united