Not signing Clint Dempsey sums up Liverpool's malaise, says Dion Fanning
There are some who would argue that replacing Andy Carroll with nobody, as Liverpool did on Friday night, is a fair swap.
At Upton Park yesterday, Carroll demonstrated what he can do in a team that sees simple terror as the most effective way of winning football matches. At Liverpool, however, he was a problem, albeit one created by others, particularly those who authorised his signing.
Since Sabermetrics became the desired business model for football clubs, any action in the transfer market leads to people grabbing Moneyball from the shelves with the zeal of an evangelist opening the Old Testament to exclaim why we're all doomed.
Liverpool had a pretty good summer in the transfer market and a pretty bad transfer deadline day. In January 2011, they had a triumphant transfer deadline day and they have been suffering for it and other mistakes since.
On one of the pages in Michael Lewis's book which explains Billy Beane's philosophy, there is an insight into how FSG are running Liverpool now and what they should have done before. "You can always recover from the player you didn't sign. You may never recover from the player you signed at the wrong price."
Liverpool are still trying to recover from the signing of Carroll for £35m, perhaps the wrongest price there has ever been in the spectacular history of wrong prices. It was so bad that FSG should sack themselves for signing off on it. Then they were new to English football and eager to make an impression.
The signing of Carroll calmed supporters after the sale of Torres. Yet if FSG had questioned Carroll's price, as they questioned Clint Dempsey's on Friday night, they might have angered supporters who, understandably, are angry again after the failure to sign Dempsey.
There is an argument to be made that Dempsey was over-priced, yet stalling on a fee of £5m which leaves Rodgers with only two strikers seems like an extreme implementation of their new philosophy.
Carroll seems to have been signed at a time when nobody was accountable but Liverpool are having to account for it now. Kenny Dalglish's defenders will point out that he was just a caretaker when Carroll was signed and couldn't have authorised the deal.
Ian Ayre was commercial director then and appointed managing director by the time Liverpool splurged again last summer. If only Damien Comolli can be directly implicated in the Carroll signing, nobody can dispute that Dalglish was involved in the catastrophic spending last summer when he paid too much for Stewart Downing and Jordan Henderson.
Liverpool are burdened with those players and for a club facing into a third season without Champions League football, there was always going to be some brutal realism, if anything can be more brutally realistic than watching Downing trying to play.
There are other painful realities. From the end of this transfer window to the opening of the next, Liverpool will pay close to £2m in wages to Joe Cole. Cole's arrival was greeted with hysterical celebration from many Liverpool fans who presumably would have been as angry if something had happened to prevent that deal as they were when Dempsey's fell through on Friday night.
They could thank Christian Purslow for the Cole deal as they operated a sort of an anti-Moneyball, with a determination to make as many spectacularly wrong decisions at the wrong price as they could.
FSG should have trusted their instincts long before this summer. There may have been too much of their instinct present last week. Ayre led the negotiations for Dempsey and was unconvincing again.
Liverpool knew there was no way back to Fulham for Dempsey who had burned his bridges quite spectacularly. Yet when Tottenham entered the fight, Fulham and Dempsey had an alternative and Liverpool were burnt.
If Liverpool want to see the danger of too much austerity they can look at Aston Villa, a club they helped tremendously last summer with their philanthropic gesture, the signing of Downing for £20m.
Villa have cut costs and suffered but there will be a money man somewhere arguing that they had no option but to drain all hope from the supporters.
Brendan Rodgers fought hard for what he wanted when he joined Liverpool. As a young manager, he might have been expected to be grateful for the opportunity and agreed to FSG's plan for sporting directors and football consultants.
Instead he showed the arrogance essential for the job when he said he would manage in his way. FSG abandoned their plans.
So far Rodgers has, moving on players like Carroll and Charlie Adam who were never capable of playing his way.
Yet FSG wanted to do things their way too. Rodgers won the argument on how the football club would be managed but they are more reluctant to abandon their ideas on how it should be financed.
This may seem like a very modern idea but the struggle between a manager and his board is one of the eternal battles in football. Maybe Rodgers learnt something on Friday night. He certainly became more aware of the dysfunction that still thrives at Liverpool.