Rodgers On The Committee

[rurikbird]

I really don't think we should be taking any advice from Rodgers regarding transfer strategy. He is a really good tactician, but also one of the most limited and inept scouts of talents I've ever seen at a top level of the game. For all the failings of the transfer committee, their signings were head and shoulders above Rodgers'.

 

[Red Mullet]

I really don't think we should be taking any advice from Rodgers regarding transfer strategy. He is a really good tactician, but also one of the most limited and inept scouts of talents I've ever seen at a top level of the game. For all the failings of the transfer committee, their signings were head and shoulders above Rodgers'.

They chose Mario Balotelli. I'll call it evens.

 

[manwithnoname]

Rodgers is slowly but surely giving more of his opinions about FSG, without ever being too confrontational or aggressive:

Rodgers says the Anfield hierarchy need to “decide whether they want a business model or a winning model”.

“A winning model would mean trying to get the best possible players that you can, at whatever age they are, it doesn't matter.
“Some clubs will go into work and have that in mind. Others will think it is about buying a player, developing and improving them and then selling them on for a much greater fee, as opposed to getting the best possible player, irrelevant of his age, in order to win.
“This is the way it is going, some clubs operate with the model of football being a business and they will want to do the best they possibly can, but it will always be about getting a young player in, improving them and having a sale and value that is greater when they got them.
“Other clubs will be in the market to just buy the top talents, irrespective of what age they are, in order to look to win. I think the best clubs must get the balance between both (models).”

 

[Hansern]

I'd lover for Rodgers to answer which model does spending 102,5 mill on Benteke, Lovren, Lallana, Borini and Allen come under?

The blame for our poor spending should be placed on all involved.

 

[manwithnoname]

I'd lover for Rodgers to answer which model does spending 102,5 mill on Benteke, Lovren, Lallana, Borini and Allen come under?

The blame for our poor spending should be placed on all involved.

Oh wait, sorry, don't get the impression that just because I posted that, I have exonerated him of all blame. Lallana was 26 and cost us £25m. So that goes against what he said for a start.

But what I do agree with, and have always said, is that FSG do not have a genuine desire to give us enough money to consistently compete for and win trophies. They might think they're so smart that they can "business the shit out football" but they clearly can't, so the only conclusion to draw is that they don't really expect that anymore, or they are totally deluded. Either way, we need new, richer owners who can bankroll us to glory. There's no other way.

 

[Hansern]

Oh wait, sorry, don't get the impression that just because I posted that, I have exonerated him of all blame. Lallana was 26 and cost us £25m. So that goes against what he said for a start.

But what I do agree with, and have always said, is that FSG do not have a genuine desire to give us enough money to consistently compete for and win trophies. They might think they're so smart that they can "business the shit out football" but they clearly can't, so the only conclusion to draw is that they don't really expect that anymore, or they are totally deluded. Either way, we need new, richer owners who can bankroll us to glory. There's no other way.

I didnt get that impression mate. I just found Rodgers comments a bit odd seeing as he has gotten several of his preferred targets for a lot of money.

I agree that our spending isnt enough to compete with the teams at the top but 150 mill net spend over the last 5 years (4th in the league), should see us for the very minimum compete for top 4. Not a race to finish 8th-12th.

Wouldnt surprise me if the owners sell in the near future.

 

[hamstrung_pigeon]

Meanwhile, Arsenal have poached the top scout from Leicester, supposedly the fella who brought them Kante and Mahrez. Report linked below says his last post at Leicester was head of technical scouting, and now he's first team video scout for Arsenal. If his new role is just scouting opposition based on youtube clips, then I suppose that's okay. 😉

http://www.espnfcasia.com/barclays-...uit-new-first-team-video-scout-from-leicester

 

[Best Believe It]

Meanwhile, Arsenal have poached the top scout from Leicester, supposedly the fella who brought them Kante and Mahrez. Report linked below says his last post at Leicester was head of technical scouting, and now he's first team video scout for Arsenal. If his new role is just scouting opposition based on youtube clips, then I suppose that's okay. 😉

http://www.espnfcasia.com/barclays-...uit-new-first-team-video-scout-from-leicester

It's all very well hiring the scouts of Leicester, or Southampton, or anyone else who has spotted a really good player, but spotting them isn't really the problem when it comes to Arsenal, or any other 'bigger club'. The problem is that these clubs are far less likely to want to gamble on people like Vardy who, as Brendan has said in another thread only scored 5 last season.

Also, the bigger clubs are less likely to be inclined to sign these players because they'll be quoted much more money.

 

[Windom Earle]

Oh wait, sorry, don't get the impression that just because I posted that, I have exonerated him of all blame. Lallana was 26 and cost us £25m. So that goes against what he said for a start.

But what I do agree with, and have always said, is that FSG do not have a genuine desire to give us enough money to consistently compete for and win trophies. They might think they're so smart that they can "business the shit out football" but they clearly can't, so the only conclusion to draw is that they don't really expect that anymore, or they are totally deluded. Either way, we need new, richer owners who can bankroll us to glory. There's no other way.

There certainly was a lot written and said about how business savvy the owners were when they took the club on. As you say, they have proven that that's not really the case - or perhaps that their business acumen just doesn't translate very well to the EPL.

I'd love to know what Henry et al really think about the transfer policy. Fans, pundits and owners can argue forever about net spend vs gross spend and whether the owners have provided the capital that was really needed, but what is clear is that the money spent on players to this point by FSG does not represent good value for money.

I hate this whole committee thing, unless I'm mistaken Mike Gordon, Rodgers and Klopp are all record saying that the manager has final say and that no player is bought or sold without the manager's approval. For me, that puts to bed the whole Rodgers' signing/committee signing bollocks, as in reality all players have been signed by committee (which includes the manager)! It's not the idea that's flawed, it's the people FSG have so far trusted to see it through.

I guess where I'm going with this is that even an owner with deeper pockets won't be enough if they don't sort out who is responsible for identifying and signing players. Seven first team strikers have been signed by FSG by my count It's actually nine, I'd forgotten Lambert and Aspas. Over £100m spent on one position, with only the one real success - and that's just one example.

 

[Judge Jules]

Agree with most of that, the last para.especially, but that's why I do have difficulty with the idea of a committee. Even if it's now clear that the manager has a veto (and I wonder if it really is as clear-cut as that in practice), I for one recoil instinctively from the idea of a committee having to sit around and not only discuss but formally play at least some part in approving deals. I see a real danger of "too many cooks" in involving that number of people.

 

[manwithnoname]

There certainly was a lot written and said about how business savvy the owners were when they took the club on. As you say, they have proven that that's not really the case - or perhaps that their business acumen just doesn't translate very well to the EPL.

I'd love to know what Henry et al really think about the transfer policy. Fans, pundits and owners can argue forever about net spend vs gross spend and whether the owners have provided the capital that was really needed, but what is clear is that the money spent on players to this point by FSG does not represent good value for money.

I hate this whole committee thing, unless I'm mistaken Mike Gordon, Rodgers and Klopp are all record saying that the manager has final say and that no player is bought or sold without the manager's approval. For me, that puts to bed the whole Rodgers' signing/committee signing bollocks, as in reality all players have been signed by committee (which includes the manager)! It's not the idea that's flawed, it's the people FSG have so far trusted to see it through.

I guess where I'm going with this is that even an owner with deeper pockets won't be enough if they don't sort out who is responsible for identifying and signing players. Seven first team strikers have been signed by FSG by my count, over £100m spent on one position, with only the one real success - and that's just one example.

Yeah, true, but deeper pockets mean we can afford to make mistakes and rectify them more quickly, instead of every expensive signing being a 'shit or bust' option that has to work, which puts the failures - and there have been too many, certainly - into sharper focus

 

[Windom Earle]

Agree with most of that, the last para.especially, but that's why I do have difficulty with the idea of a committee. Even if it's now clear that the manager has a veto (and I wonder if it really is as clear-cut as that in practice), I for one recoil instinctively from the idea of a committee having to sit around and not only discuss but formally play at least some part in approving deals. I see a real danger of "too many cooks" in involving that number of people.

Do you think it really is a committee though? My impression of it is that the "committee" is something that the media have latched onto and ran away with. The idea of a manager having complete control over transfers is quite old fashioned now, I can't imagine any club out there doesn't use the input of a number of staff in the run up to a player signing. Ian Ayre is the odd one out on the committee, the rest all hold positions in the club that you would expect to have an input on whether to sign a player or not from a talent perspective.

 

[manwithnoname]

Do you think it really is a committee though? My impression of it is that the "committee" is something that the media have latched onto and ran away with. The idea of a manager having complete control over transfers is quite old fashioned now, I can't imagine any club out there doesn't use the input of a number of staff in the run up to a player signing. Ian Ayre is the odd one out on the committee, the rest all hold positions in the club that you would expect to have an input on whether to sign a player or not from a talent perspective.

What would Mike Gordon know about player talent?

 

[peekay]

Agree with most of that, the last para.especially, but that's why I do have difficulty with the idea of a committee. Even if it's now clear that the manager has a veto (and I wonder if it really is as clear-cut as that in practice), I for one recoil instinctively from the idea of a committee having to sit around and not only discuss but formally play at least some part in approving deals. I see a real danger of "too many cooks" in involving that number of people.

But doesnt every club in Europe have some form of a committee to make the decisions. I dont think the problem is in using a committee to make decisions. Problem is in our committee as the people on them and the scouts are not good enough.

 

[Windom Earle]

Yeah, true, but deeper pockets mean we can afford to make mistakes and rectify them more quickly, instead of every expensive signing being a 'shit or bust' option that has to work, which puts the failures - and there have been too many, certainly - into sharper focus

Good point, but deeper pockets and the same decision makers would likely still mean too many mistakes to make a real difference in my opinion.

What I don't understand is that, after all these years even with different owners, Liverpool still operate a quantity over quality approach most of the time. Even now with a settled team behind the decisions the club still buys a pile of dross every summer the replace last summer's dross - revolving door policies rarely work, surely someone at the club understands that.

 

[Windom Earle]

What would Mike Gordon know about player talent?

As per reports:

It compromised five men: Rodgers, Ian Ayre, Liverpool's Chief Executive; Dave Fallows, the Head of Recruitment; Barry Hunter, the Chief Scout and Michael Edwards, who is the influential Director of Technical Performance.

The Echo mentioned Mike Gordon, but he appears to only be involved in the financial decision around recruitment.

So OK, take out Gordon as well, point still stands.

 

[manwithnoname]

Good point, but deeper pockets and the same decision makers would likely still mean too many mistakes to make a real difference in my opinion.

What I don't understand is that, after all these years even with different owners, Liverpool still operate a quantity over quality approach most of the time. Even now with a settled team behind the decisions the club still buys a pile of dross every summer the replace last summer's dross - revolving door policies rarely work, surely someone at the club understands that.

Yeah, but part of that issue is possibly that even if we wanted to spend 40m on a player, that sort of calibre footballer has better options, so we end up spending that on two or three players who we can actually sign. We rarely sign players that the bigger, richer clubs want and that's partly due to the wages and finances, but also due to the fact that we aren't likely to win anything, so they don't come.

 

[Windom Earle]

Yeah, but part of that issue is possibly that even if we wanted to spend 40m on a player, that sort of calibre footballer has better options, so we end up spending that on two or three players who we can actually sign. We rarely sign players that the bigger, richer clubs want and that's partly due to the wages and finances, but also due to the fact that we aren't likely to win anything, so they don't come.

I agree. But we don't get enough value where we shop now while we also stockpile players for the same positions.

Look at the amount of number 10s in the squad, would we have been that worse off saving £20m and promoting Joao Teixeira?

So instead of £20m a pop we start spending £40m on players who do not fit. Wasted money is wasted money, it might not be the owner's money but it's us that suffer having to watch our £40m star stink the place out while teams around us find better players at better value.

Besides, it looks like we've got FSG for a while yet so the issues with their model are what needs addressing.

 

[manwithnoname]

But again, that's partly due to the club PR, image, reputation and legacy. And also fan expectations. We have money, not as much as the Elite clubs, but more than, say, Spurs. So if we all of a sudden start buying players like Vardy and Mahrez, there's a fan and media backlash. We have to flex some muscle, show a type of ambition, make 'statements'.

So when Torres forced our hand and went to Chelsea, we HAD to do something. Had to make a big splash. That's also part of the problem, and I Totally understand the club acting in a certain way sometimes, even if it's very obviously the wrong thing to do.

 

[Windom Earle]

Sorry, but I don't buy any of this.

So if we all of a sudden start buying players like Vardy and Mahrez, there's a fan and media backlash. We have to flex some muscle, show a type of ambition, make 'statements'.

That's exactly what the club has done. Buying players like Enrique/Carroll/Lallana after a breakout Premier League season. Problem is, we pay massively inflated fees most of the time for players that don't justify it. The model is wrong most of the time. This also goes AGAINST the fan and media expectation, given everything that was written about Moneyball and polishing rough diamonds/turds when FSG took over - if they actually started to do this I don't think there would be a backlash, it would be what was actually expected from the start, besides they have got it right on occasion with Sturridge and Coutinho being good examples. Where was the backlash for those deals? Or for the Ings and Gomez signings for that matter?

We have to flex some muscle, show a type of ambition, make 'statements'.

If this is what the club are doing then they are wholly out of touch with what constitutes a 'statement' in the eyes of the fans. Benteke sticks out as an ambitious, 'statement' signing that a lot of the fanbase saw as anything but. For me, the only real statements they've got right in recent times have been denying Suarez his move to Arsenal and recruiting Klopp as manager. There have been a lot of underwhelming decisions in between.

We have money, not as much as the Elite clubs, but more than, say, Spurs.

Spurs have some consistency, with the same decision makers responsible for recruitment. They have used their lesser funds (debatable) to better effect, getting better value. There have been some comparable mistakes, but arguably less than Liverpool have made. Soldado didn't work out for Spurs, but Liverpool have two failures in their recent history in that same price bracket. The players they bought with the Bale money have started to come good now, have the players Liverpool bought with the Suarez money added the equivalent value to the squad? Does a player like Eriksen really provide only half the value to that Spurs team as Lallana does to ours?

Pochetino is also building a consistent style. Under Rodgers, Liverpool lurched from dour "death by football" to brutal counter attack and back again. At no point under Rodgers did the recruitment appear to reflect a style of football. Did anyone think that, with the signing of Benteke, Liverpool would look to play the style that had them finishing second? Or that the rest of the squad had the right type of players to supply Benteke?

So when Torres forced our hand and went to Chelsea, we HAD to do something.

We are yet to hear the full story from Torres but - pinch of salt at the ready - he and other departing players at that time spoke of broken promises. I don't think it is unreasonable to think that the club forced the players' hands rather than the other way around. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[Red Bird]

The problem has for quite some time been the buying of one-season wonders and simply wrong players who may have thrived in less pressure-driven environments but completely collapse in the cauldron of Anfield. Even more egregious is the lack of a coherent vision which includes the academy which has meant that the club has been "in transition" for most of the last few years pissing away good positions and opportunities. The scouting is not convincing-- how many of the players we bought, for more than the mid-table fees we perennially splurge, have been anywhere near an improvement on those whom they have replaced?

That said, I'm heartened by Klopp's steadfast refusal to panic buy in January and want to see what he can do with a proper pre-season preparation.

 

[Wiberg]

We should just have paid Suarez 350.000 a week. It's so simple. That is the intent this club needs to show.

We are a selling club and that is now in the core fabric of our design.

The players we can buy and the players who wants to come would be dramatically improved if we chose to start the conversation by actually showing that the best players stays at LFC.

Nothing will change until this happens...

 

[HC]

I wouldn't be against a £100m bid for suarez in the summer in place of all other signings

We could bin off Lucas to finance at least £6m of his fee too.

 

[Wiberg]

I wouldn't be against a £100m bid for suarez in the summer in place of all other signings

We could bin off Lucas to finance at least £6m of his fee too.

You think we should attempt to sign the top scorer from LA Liga from Barcelona for 30 mill more than they paid? And he is 30...?

 

[HC]

Echo

 

[manwithnoname]

Sorry, but I don't buy any of this.



That's exactly what the club has done. Buying players like Enrique/Carroll/Lallana after a breakout Premier League season. Problem is, we pay massively inflated fees most of the time for players that don't justify it. The model is wrong most of the time. This also goes AGAINST the fan and media expectation, given everything that was written about Moneyball and polishing rough diamonds/turds when FSG took over - if they actually started to do this I don't think there would be a backlash, it would be what was actually expected from the start, besides they have got it right on occasion with Sturridge and Coutinho being good examples. Where was the backlash for those deals? Or for the Ings and Gomez signings for that matter?

If this is what the club are doing then they are wholly out of touch with what constitutes a 'statement' in the eyes of the fans. Benteke sticks out as an ambitious, 'statement' signing that a lot of the fanbase saw as anything but. For me, the only real statements they've got right in recent times have been denying Suarez his move to Arsenal and recruiting Klopp as manager. There have been a lot of underwhelming decisions in between.

Oh behave. You think most fans would be happy if we only bought "unpolished gems" like Sturridge, Gomez and Coutinho, and carried on selling our best players like Suarez, Sterling, Mascherano and Torres to bigger, richer clubs? Within days there'd be a shitstorm about "lack of ambition" and "lowered expectations from a selling club".

Nobody would be stroking their chin and saying "yes, how wise, this is smart moneyball business at work! Hooray!" Not least because there's no such thing as a smart money ball business that works in this country.

Not to mention that most of the "unpolished gems" we sign are actually "unflushable turds". You listed Sturridge, Coutinho and Gomez. Why haven't you listed Borini, Adam, Allen, Assaidi, Alberto, Aspas, Mignolet, Illori?

We are a big, rich club. We should be trying to buy top players, like we did with Sanchez and Costa. Just because we waste big money on mediocre players like Lallana, Sakho, Balotelli, Markovic, Carroll, Benteke etc, doesn't mean that we should suddenly decide that we only buy young players for 5-15m - with an obvious view to selling them at a profit. We waste just as much money in that bracket.

We need a mixture of proven quality, usually at high expense, and younger players. And we need those players to be of a higher quality. That's a scouting issue, certainly. But the one crucial factor in consistent success in this league is spending lots of money on players and wages. Moneyball is a fantasy.

 

[Windom Earle]

Oh behave. You think most fans would be happy if we only bought "unpolished gems" like Sturridge, Gomez and Coutinho, and carried on selling our best players like Suarez, Sterling, Mascherano and Torres to bigger, richer clubs? Within days there'd be a shitstorm about "lack of ambition" and "lowered expectations from a selling club".

Nobody would be stroking their chin and saying "yes, how wise, this is smart moneyball business at work! Hooray!" Not least because there's no such thing as a smart money ball business that works in this country.

Not to mention that most of the "unpolished gems" we sign are actually "unflushable turds". You listed Sturridge, Coutinho and Gomez. Why haven't you listed Borini, Adam, Allen, Assaidi, Alberto, Aspas, Mignolet, Illori?

We are a big, rich club. We should be trying to buy top players, like we did with Sanchez and Costa. Just because we waste big money on mediocre players like Lallana, Sakho, Balotelli, Markovic, Carroll, Benteke etc, doesn't mean that we should suddenly decide that we only buy young players for 5-15m - with an obvious view to selling them at a profit. We waste just as much money in that bracket.

We need a mixture of proven quality, usually at high expense, and younger players. And we need those players to be of a higher quality. That's a scouting issue, certainly. But the one crucial factor in consistent success in this league is spending lots of money on players and wages. Moneyball is a fantasy.

My point has kind of been sprawled across a few posts, but we are actually mostly in agreement.

I'm not advocating spending £30m+ on every player. I'm not advocating spending £5m on every player. I'm not even advocating a change in approach. I'm saying that the mix of potential and quality, proven buys is broadly correct but the players that we identify as such are hit and miss. I listed the hits from the "potential" signings (Sturridge, Gomez and Coutinho) - you have filled in the blanks for me with a lovely long list of misses (Borini, Adam, Allen, Assaidi, Alberto, Aspas, Mignolet, Illori). The point here is that the fans have readily accepted a lot of the lower valued players where their potential is clear, it's been a while since a high-value purchase has actually justified the fee though (Firmino looks like he may do that).

Moneyball doesn't work in this league, mainly because it isn't a level playing field but also because football is not so easy to boil down to just statistics. But the main principle of Moneyball is value for money and we just are not getting that.

Liverpool are a big rich club, who as you pointed out earlier are not as big and rich as the elite clubs. We cannot offer Champions League football and we cannot move the club to a fancier location. Are you happy with the club showing its intent, trying and failing to sign the Costa/Sanchez/Willian type players to then go on and blow that cash on dross? We need better value no matter what area of the market we shop in, because right now there is a big long list of wasteful buys.

I agree it's a scouting issue and I agree we need the mix. I don't agree with anyone that says the club buy well and I don't think that you do either.

I also think there's a strategic problem. What do you see as the thinking behind club recruitment? To me, it just looks like stockpiling. When we had Comolli as DoF there did at lease look to be a playing style behind the approach with Andy Carroll being supplied by Adam and Downing (I'm glad we didn't have to suffer this for long though and obviously Comolli made a lot of wasteful purchases too).

 

[Arn]

We should be signing two top class players every season and give our youngsters a chance instead of signing a lot of players. Some people, well at least one think that is totally idiotic.

I think that Suarez will be available in the summer for £40m or £50m. He is worth that. Suarez have already himself said that he would only join us if he returned to the PL so we do have a chance to sign him.

If we have a chance to sign the best player on the planet then we should do everything we can to make it happen.

That would be a statement. That would show ambition.

At least one member here think that Suarez would turn us down only because we played some games with Markovic or Ojo next season. I have still not stopped laughing. I think that he would join us because we now have Klopp as our manager. He play the game the way Suarez want to play. Attack, attack, attack, press, press, press.

Idiotic no. Realistic yes. Not very realistic but realistic.

 

[Arn]

I don't have right to have the opinion that Ojo is a better talent than Ibe because Ojo hasn't played enough games but I do think that Ojo is the better talent. Time will tell.

If someone insults you because of that opinion then you know who is the real idiot. It may not be right but you have the right to have that opinion without being called idioit and a lot of other things.

If you don't agree with someone then say why and explain why. Nothing else.

 

[manwithnoname]

We should be signing two top class players every season and give our youngsters a chance instead of signing a lot of players. Some people, well at least one think that is totally idiotic.

I think that Suarez will be available in the summer for £40m or £50m. He is worth that. Suarez have already himself said that he would only join us if he returned to the PL so we do have a chance to sign him.

If we have a chance to sign the best player on the planet then we should do everything we can to make it happen.

That would be a statement. That would show ambition.

At least one member here think that Suarez would turn us down only because we played some games with Markovic or Ojo next season. I have still not stopped laughing. I think that he would join us because we now have Klopp as our manager. He play the game the way Suarez want to play. Attack, attack, attack, press, press, press.

Idiotic no. Realistic yes. Not very realistic but realistic.

"Not very realistic" isn't "realistic".

The words "not" and "very" prefacing the word "realistic" denote an outcome that isn't very realistic. i.e. not realistic. Which is the opposite of "realistic".