I think their record is patchy but their approach is right.
In any case how good they are isn't really the point.
Tony Barrret Article
- Thread starter Squiggles
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
I think their record is patchy but their approach is right.
In any case how good they are isn't really the point.
They aren't pathetic, they're fact, just subjective because I don't remember who was in charge at that time, it's beside the point anyway. You seem to think there's this massive disconnect between us and other clubs, as if we are somehow unique in how we operate, as if there's this internal tug of war between committee and Rodgers, it's rubbish. The club for some ridiculous reason has advertised this "transfer committee" as some example of "American efficiency" when it comes to running the club, it's entire purpose was PR from the owners to save face after backing down from the Sports Director model to sign up Rodgers. There is absolutely no difference from how we're run to how any other club (without a Sports Director) is run, every signing here has arrived with the blessing of Brendan, every single one, from Sakho to Lovren, Borini to Balotelli, they've all got the yes from Brendan.
You're just trying to hijack this whole debate to form another way to tell us how rubbish Brendan is and how he's pulling the club backwards against the will of the clever people on the committee, it's so transparent and tiresome. Moan about his tactics, and team selections all you want, but don't try and suggest that Rodgers favours "his" signings only, they're all his fucking signings, the good ones, the average ones, and the shit ones.
If by his you mean the clubs signings over the last three years, in general they've left a lot to be desired, but it's this cherry picking of the signings and assigning the good ones to the committee and the bad ones to Rodgers which I have a problem with.
The one thing I'd imagine Barrett will regret from that article is acknowledging this - 'Although players had not been signed against the manager’s will, there were instances when he had to accept that internal politics meant that he could not always get his first choice' - but then proceeding to pitch things in terms of Rodgers v the committee rather than the dynamics of the committee as a whole. Because this is all about power struggles within the committee.
Rodgers has ALWAYS had the final decision as to whether a player is signed or not. Always. No one has come whom he didn't want to come. Some he's wanted far more than others, but that's another matter.
It's for this reason that his attitude last season - forget agendas - stank. He was part of all the deliberations of the committee. He had his input along with the rest. And when the consensus was to sign a player, he was invited either to agree with it or veto it. No one was 'forced' on him.
They're all his signings once he agrees to them being signed.
Rodgers has ALWAYS had the final decision as to whether a player is signed or not. Always. No one has come whom he didn't want to come. Some he's wanted far more than others, but that's another matter.
It's for this reason that his attitude last season - forget agendas - stank. He was part of all the deliberations of the committee. He had his input along with the rest. And when the consensus was to sign a player, he was invited either to agree with it or veto it. No one was 'forced' on him.
They're all his signings once he agrees to them being signed.
I think the approach in 'Rodgers' signings' hasn't been too different either - mostly players in the 20-25 age bracket with potential resale value (Milner the exception of course). Like the committee though, the choice of player has been largely poor.
Re: the favouritism for 'his' signings, I think the evidence for that is frankly quite tenuous. Markovic, Moreno, Sakho and Can all played aplenty last season. I expect Sakho and Can to feature fairly prominently this season as well. Markovic and Moreno have been sidelined, but that's mostly because Gomez and Ibe have shown themselves to be better.
He's also been happy to sideline Borini, Mignolet, Lambert just as readily as he's been willing to sideline Aspas, Alberto, Moreno etc.
I do understand Peters point though.
Some players are seemingly completely different to others.
Take lovren and Sakho. One was in a consistently solid premiership defence, one was out of favour, young and at a European giant.
Marko and Lallana, one a pacey attacking mid, young and highly rated , the other... A solid premiership attacking mid
Lambert and balotelli, one a childish simpleton, who can produce moments of magic, the other............ A solid premiership proven striker
Clyne and Moreno, one a lightning quick, but defensively frail full back, coming off the back of European success. The other........ You get my point
Yes it's a committee, but you can tell which ones Rodgers brings the table and which ones other people bring to the table.
Obviously we sign them so Rodgers is happy with them, but I honestly feel Rodgers would rather play the ones who are ready to play, and not develop the ones who need to develop. Mario needed to be told to fucking grow up, Markovic needed minutes and to be played where he plays for his previous club and country, Moreno need to be educated in defensive positions
The failures of the signings seems down to be a lack of effort in improving them, rather than them being poor players
Except Borini and Aspas. They were both aids
I think peterhague is right to the extent that some rough segregation can be made in terms of whether Rodgers had a greater say or the committee. But I don't find much evidence (at least yet) to back the claim that Rodgers has shown a favouritism or bias towards 'his' signings.
But generally the "committee" signings have faired better than "Rogers" signings.
I get the impression that, like Cabinet Ministers, the committee members are all happy to take the praise for the successes while passing the buck on the failures. Collective responsibility soon breaks down. Take Markovic: everyone seemed absolutely obsessed with getting that lad. Everyone. It was a long campaign and the corks were popping when he arrived. It's only after he failed to settle quickly that suddenly the 'It was their idea' or 'It was his idea' starts being muttered around.
Think Houllier definitely showed a preference for getting established senior players though.
Loads of his signings were 25 plus when he signed them - Ferri, Hyypia, Smicer, Camara, Meijer, Hamann, McAllister, Babbel, Barmby, Ziege, Litmanen, Finnan, Dudek
Good point, yes, he's a big exception to the rule. Very odd seeing as he was brought in partly because of his skills as a developer of youth!
I think the one break with the old tradition is that, whereas under-25s used to be signed with a view to keeping them here until they were at the end of their best years, we now bring them in with either the expectation or fear that we'll only get two or three years out of them before, if they do well, a richer club steps in and signs them.
But the signings were all agreed by the same people that's the point. It's quite simple, Brendan can't go and scout every player in Europe, so he sends his scouts across the continent and acts on their findings, and they are probably instructed to find exciting players with large potential.
Obviously he gets to see premier league players in the flesh, so gets to "scout" them himself, but to suggest the premier league players are his signings, and the others are not is baloney, every player we've signed has been because he's been convinced to sign them, be that by seeing them himself, or by reading the reports / watching the video his scouts have sent him, it's how every other club in the league (sans sports director) works.
The way Peter words it is like there's some big power struggle in the club and Brendan is forced to begrudging sign players he doesn't want, and he then proceeds to act like a child for the rest of the season by not playing them and shutting them out, it's total tosh.
They're all Rodgers signings.
Rogers couldn't set up Moreno to be better defensively as he hasn't got a clue how to set up a team to be stronger defensively.
My point is Brendan doesn't like developing players. so when we've scouted some players, Brendan likes the little he's seen and the blurb that's come with them. Then they get here and he's a bit "hmmm". He plays them when needed, not by choice.
Stop being pedantic.
And that's what will get him sacked
Well yes, that's a completely different discussion and I don't particularly disagree with it, my objection was purely with PH breaking them into two different groups and suggesting that Brendan favours "his" players above the others to our detriment.
It's not pedantic, it's the entire point.
Haha, yes you are. Of course they're his signings, he's the fucking manager, so they'll all get labelled as his signings to the outside world. But as been said, it's bleeding obvious which ahve been selected by the committee and which have been selected by Rogers.
If they're his signings, then they've been selected by him, this isn't hard.
If Rodgers wants a player and none of the other committee members want that player, that player doesn't get signed. End of.
The difference is back then it was referred to as common sense where as now it will be included in a cringeworthy powerpoint designed to justify someone's salary.
No-one does. We should know better than most given that we've chopped and changed owners, managers and management strategies over the last several years.
That's not really the point though.
Managers generally have to plan for the short-term because they know that their job is on the line. That's just the nature of things in football and a lot of sports probably. Any club that places a manager at the centre of their strategic planning compromises that process because unless that person is genuinely altruistic they won't be able to detach themselves from immediate concerns.
Sporting directors (or management that are not on the front-line) have a mandate to plan strategically and look at the long-term and as such there is less pressure on them to yield immediate results. They may be end up getting fired for being shit in the end but that's a risk any company takes when hiring senior execs responsible for defining strategy and a company's direction.
- Status
Similar threads
