Why are we so bad at signing players?

[Best Believe It]

I have seen a stat posted by Paul Joyce of the Express today, which states that since Gerrard scored the winner against Olympiakos we've signed 75 players at a cost of £520 million.

I don't have the attention span to go through each of the players we've signed since then but it's probably fair to say that if we had more hits than misses we'd have done a lot better than we have been in recent times.

I can't remember a time since Graeme Souness took over where we were consistently good over a number of years at signing players. There have been good transfer windows, excellent players signed, but we've not really had a transfer strategy/policy/method which has yielded good results (I'm not claiming that we can completely avoid signing players who don't work out) over a number of years.

Is this because we haven't since Peter Robinson had a set up which supports the signing of transfers over a consistent period? Rick Parry, followed by Comolli, followed by whatever the hell the arrangement is now.

Is it because of scouting? Is it because we keep changing fundamentally the philosophy of the playing style - Houllier to Benitez to Hodgson to Rodgers (I haven't forgotten Dalglish, I just don't think he had a defined playing style, I think he was just happy to send the players out and let them do what they wanted) all required a shift in how we set up, and therefore a shift in the sort of players we targeted, which has hampered any attempt at squad building in a consistent sense.

We seem to be incapable now of uncovering players of the likes of Sami Hyypia - signings we could make for relatively low money but that hinge on scouts doing a really good job. If you look at West Ham's signings this summer - particularly Sakho - why can't we make that sort of signing? Is it because the scouting isn't up to scratch? Is it because the selling club would have one price for West Ham and another for us? Is it because the player can flourish in a relatively pressure-less environment like West Ham and would struggle with the weight of expectation at Anfield?

I raise all this because we have the transfer window coming up and I don't have a great deal of faith we'll be able to address the problems in the squad.

EDIT: Or are we actually not that bad at signing players - we are just in a financial position whereby we can't afford to rectify mistakes as easily? Are we just the same as say Arsenal in terms of the rate of success of transfers?

 

[jexykrodic]

Not quite enough money to buy real class players and a need to balance the books.

Anyone with the time and inclination to go through the transfer ins and outs will probably find the balance is quite close.

Given Citeh or Chelski's money I expect we'd make less mistakes.

 

[Best Believe It]

Not quite enough money to buy real class players and a need to balance the books.

Anyone with the time and inclination to go through the transfer ins and outs will probably find the balance is quite close.

Given Citeh or Chelski's money I expect we'd make less mistakes.

Given that we don't have Chelsea or City's money, why aren't we able to identify players of the ilk of Hyypia as an alternative? Is that because they just aren't that unknown anymore? Is that because we get charged a premium for whoever we sign? Is it because our scouting isn't any good?

 

[Mystic]

We've also bought some exceptional players in that time, I think the case is that everyone buys dross, we just notice our dross a lot more. Off the top of my head, we've signed Kuyt, Agger, Skrtel, Reina, Mascherano, Torres, Suarez, Sturridge, they're some massive players.

 

[Mors]

We've signed Mascherano, Alonso, Torres, Suarez, Sturridge in recent times that have been marvellous, but that's about it out of the 75. About 1 in every 15.

It's not like we've not had the cash either, look at last summer. I think a lot of the time we go for the right players but so do teams that are currently 'bigger' than us and they choose to go there instead. Look at the players we tried to buy over the last few years and had the cash for, but they went elsewhere to 'bigger' teams.

 

[Modo]

I think Mark has something to do with it.

 

[Fabio]

I think Mark has something to do with it.

...

 

[gkmacca]

I can't remember a time since Graeme Souness took over where we were consistently good over a number of years at signing players.

I doubt it's entirely coincidental that this change coincides with us ceasing to win titles. So that's one big factor: when we used to whistle, the first choices came. They no longer do. In that sense I feel a bit sorry for the club - they do usually try to sign the best players, but the best players don't want to come, and then the club gets flak for not adding money that isn't there or not resorting to a Men in Black mind wipe to bewitch a player to Anfield.

But there are obviously factors that have more to do with poor judgment and individual failings. You could argue that there has always been an unofficial transfer committee, in the sense that the board always got involved in discussions about whom to sign. Even when Dalglish was winning titles as a matter of course the likes of Noel White (who never supported him) and others were blocking some of his moves and questioning some of his signings. So the notion it's a new idea that the manager isn't all-powerful is a myth. But I think the fact that this used to be kept pretty secret, so that the buck stopped publicly with the manager, meant that there was more effort made to act on the manager's wishes. Now, with this semi-open arrangement, the manager has an unofficial excuse, and so do all the others. It's as if they all sit in the board room wearing 'I'm with Stupid' shirts and pointing at each other.

One of the failings that's hard to overrate is the incompetence of successive CEOs. Parry was disgracefully slow and ineffectual at pursuing targets. When your appeal as a club declines and your financial clout is diminished, you really have to scrap and scheme to get your first choices. He failed manager after manager. Now Ayre is failing, too - not as badly, but he's just not smart enough for what's a crucial, but difficult, job. It's fine if a player is contacted and says 'yes'. But when he has other clubs interested and he's not sure of the club, the climate and the contract, then we need a really exceptional operator to get the deal done, and they're as rare as Suarez.

And you also need a coherent plan and then stick with it. Commoli completely revamped the scouting system, internationally, setting up unofficial feeder clubs in South America, Europe and elsewhere, hiring god knows who to extend our reach. And then he was sacked, half what he changed has been kept out of laziness but isn't really being used, and the other half has been dismantled at great expense without a new system put in place. So way too much is done on the hoof, for the short term, while the mid to long term is a horrible mess.

 

[beejay]

We've signed Mascherano, Alonso, Torres, Suarez, Sturridge in recent times that have been marvellous, but that's about it out of the 75. About 1 in every 15.

It's not like we've not had the cash either, look at last summer. I think a lot of the time we go for the right players but so do teams that are currently 'bigger' than us and they choose to go there instead. Look at the players we tried to buy over the last few years and had the cash for, but they went elsewhere to 'bigger' teams.

We recovered about £170m from the players re-sold you mention above, so Paul Joyce can stuff that stat up his dump hole as well.

Let's see some of the other clubs transfer records over the years, there will be some real duds in their's as well.

I'm more bothered about our record last summer, that's where we should be focusing because it went badly wrong there.

 

[Wiberg]

I doubt it's entirely coincidental that this change coincides with us ceasing to win titles. So that's one big factor: when we used to whistle, the first choices came. They no longer do. In that sense I feel a bit sorry for the club - they do usually try to sign the best players, but the best players don't want to come, and then the club gets flak for not adding money that isn't there or not resorting to a Men in Black mind wipe to bewitch a player to Anfield.

But there are obviously factors that have more to do with poor judgment and individual failings. You could argue that there has always been an unofficial transfer committee, in the sense that the board always got involved in discussions about whom to sign. Even when Dalglish was winning titles as a matter of course the likes of Noel White (who never supported him) and others were blocking some of his moves and questioning some of his signings. So the notion it's a new idea that the manager isn't all-powerful is a myth. But I think the fact that this used to be kept pretty secret, so that the buck stopped publicly with the manager, meant that there was more effort made to act on the manager's wishes. Now, with this semi-open arrangement, the manager has an unofficial excuse, and so do all the others. It's as if they all sit in the board room wearing 'I'm with Stupid' shirts and pointing at each other.

One of the failings that's hard to overrate is the incompetence of successive CEOs. Parry was disgracefully slow and ineffectual at pursuing targets. When your appeal as a club declines and your financial clout is diminished, you really have to scrap and scheme to get your first choices. He failed manager after manager. Now Ayre is failing, too - not as badly, but he's just not smart enough for what's a crucial, but difficult, job. It's fine if a player is contacted and says 'yes'. But when he has other clubs interested and he's not sure of the club, the climate and the contract, then we need a really exceptional operator to get the deal done, and they're as rare as Suarez.

And you also need a coherent plan and then stick with it. Commoli completely revamped the scouting system, internationally, setting up unofficial feeder clubs in South America, Europe and elsewhere, hiring god knows who to extend our reach. And then he was sacked, half what he changed has been kept out of laziness but isn't really being used, and the other half has been dismantled at great expense without a new system put in place. So way too much is done on the hoof, for the short term, while the mid to long term is a horrible mess.

Great post, Macca - you are spot on.

What a crazy and sad number: £520 million - even if we did recoup 200 mill.

I also think we need to consider the turmoil the club went through the past 25 years. David Moores and Rick Parry. I think it all starts there. Zero business vision and even less understanding about the game and where it was going. Parry - David Gills complete opposite in every sense. Can anybody here argue that we have had any viable vision for LFC business-vice during the last 25 years - forget about the actual scouting and integration of talent. It's been survival of the fittest in so many ways.

So - that's my best explanation for at least 50 players coming in the door that would have made Shankly cry.

This club needs one thing and one thing only at this stage - continuity. We need time to make mistakes on all levels in the organisation and let the same people correct them if it's possible and reasonable. Re-scale Anfield. Get new and bigger contracts with sponsors - make a decent scouting programme and ensure the best possible integration of youngsters we buy etc.

There is no quick fix. Yes, we had a season out of this world. So many things came together and so fast. It won't happen again. Not like that. Like Modo and Marks relation - all you can add right now is time.

It will happen through hard work from competent people. Is there a legitimate reason to fear for Rodgers competence at this stage? Hell yes - but for the reasons stated above he must stay until we can replace him without hurting this new found continuity.

I hope and trust that FSG can handle this in the right manner.

 

[jexykrodic]

I suspect we've recouped most of the outlay, it's a business; you couldn't sustain those numbers.

That said, what has gone is history. It's about how you can do better in future.

 

[Wiberg]

I suspect we've recouped most of the outlay, it's a business; you couldn't sustain those numbers.

That said, what has gone is history. It's about how you can do better in future.

Nope - I think it was lost and partly covered by FSG and by the loss Gillett and Hicks suffered as well.

 

[Best Believe It]

We recovered about £170m from the players re-sold you mention above, so Paul Joyce can stuff that stat up his dump hole as well.

Let's see some of the other clubs transfer records over the years, there will be some real duds in their's as well.

I'm more bothered about our record last summer, that's where we should be focusing because it went badly wrong there.

I didn't raise it as a financial problem, I was purely looking at things from the point of view of signing quality players. 75 players at an average cost of almost £7 million each should have yielded better returns that they have. There may well be mitigating factors that I wasn't privy to, which is why I was asking the question - and I did ask whether we have the same ratio of success as anyone else.

To be honest though I was just considering our own successes/failures and policy rather than comparing it to anyone else's, because it doesn't feel like we've had a period of time - say, two or more transfer windows in a row - where our incomings have been significantly more hit than miss.

 

[beejay]

CAD is right, we do need continuity but - I nearly posted this in the AVB thread yesterday - I have a feeling that FSG still hanker after the CEO/Director of Football concept where the manager is more of a coach. They wanted Louis Van Gaal as the DoF with a young coach but eventually opted for Rodgers because he was their top choice but wouldn't take the job with Van Gaal above him.

If results and performances don't improve, it wouldn't surprise me if they decide to go back to that model. It has the advantage that the manager can come and go, but there is a clear vision and leadership at the top that doesn't change. There are plenty of downsides as well of course...

 

[beejay]

I didn't raise it as a financial problem, I was purely looking at things from the point of view of signing quality players. 75 players at an average cost of almost £7 million each should have yielded better returns that they have. There may well be mitigating factors that I wasn't privy to, which is why I was asking the question - and I did ask whether we have the same ratio of success as anyone else.

To be honest though I was just considering our own successes/failures and policy rather than comparing it to anyone else's, because it doesn't feel like we've had a period of time - say, two or more transfer windows in a row - where our incomings have been significantly more hit than miss.

I wasn't having a pop at you mate, it is a stat that deserves its own thread but Joyce is mischief-making.

One of the issues is that we don't seem to learn from our own mistakes or that when we do, we rip up the whole system and start again.

I get the impression, but may be doing the club a dis-service, that our current "plan" is not to pay top wages unless the player has proved his worth at LFC and has re-sale value even at those wages. So we will pay Suarez £200k a week but won't bring in a new recruit at that level. I reckon if we had offered Alexis Sanchez that sort of money he would have come like a shot, his missus wanting London would have quickly disappeared out the window then.

The plan has its attractions because we have bought way too many supposedly top players (eg Aquilani) on huge contracts and when they bombed, we couldn't give them away. But sometimes, you do need to pay top dollar and the higher echelon players can't be tempted to join you otherwise. We are trying to be clever in the market but that often means that the players with "potential" rather than being top drawer either don't fulfil the potential or take time, to develop - time that the manager or the club can't afford.

 

[Wiberg]

CAD is right, we do need continuity but - I nearly posted this in the AVB thread yesterday - I have a feeling that FSG still hanker after the CEO/Director of Football concept where the manager is more of a coach. They wanted Louis Van Gaal as the DoF with a young coach but eventually opted for Rodgers because he was their top choice but wouldn't take the job with Van Gaal above him.

If results and performances don't improve, it wouldn't surprise me if they decide to go back to that model. It has the advantage that the manager can come and go, but there is a clear vision and leadership at the top that doesn't change. There are plenty of downsides as well of course...

Spot on BJ (interesting name?!)

Theory:
We got Balotelli on the "Money Ball" philosophy. He had all the attributes to pop up in a big data analysis to buy players - it worked with Red Sox and now they are trying to implement it on "soccer". It explains the ludicrous in-comings.

 

[Hansern]

Rafa made something like 17 good signings from 67.
Tells you all you need to know about our transfers.
Hodgson and Daglish had an even worse record.

Rodgers hasnt been much better but at least we've bought a lot of younger players with potential.

 

[Modo]

Rafa made something like 17 good signings from 67.
Tells you all you need to know about our transfers.
Hodgson and Daglish had an even worse record.

Rodgers hasnt been much better but at least we've bought a lot of younger players with potential.

Brendan has got one.

 

[Red Mullet]

So changing managers meant, changing the type of players we buy and yet we want to get rid of our current manager...

 

[Hansern]

Brendan has got one.

Really? He's got more than that. Most of the young players arent even close to being evaluated yet.

I count 8. With the jury still out on Ilori, Markovic and Origi. But they've all got a good chance of making it.

 

[Modo]

Really? He's got more than that. Most of the young players arent even close to being evaluated yet.

I count 8. With the jury still out on Ilori, Markovic and Origi. But they've all got a good chance of making it.

Are you using the same criteria with Rafa?

 

[mark1975]

"One"

Did that prat really just say that? Considering he's up the arse of Coutinho and Sturridge, he can't fucking add up.

 

[Modo]

I'm sorry Downing-Lallana lover.

 

[SummerOnions]

Will one of yous fucking propose or something?

 

[Modo]

Rafa signed a couple of players who in a few years turned world class.

I wouldn't put them in the "good signings" bracket with the likes of Allen.

Rafa made several good signings and top class signings.
So until Brendan gets another Sturridge who is the only player he's signed who is somewhat comparable to Torres/Alonso/Mascherano etc, they shouldn't even be compared.

 

[LeTallecWiz]

@Modo and @mark19

 

[Hansern]

Rafa signed a couple of players who in a few years turned world class.

I wouldn't put them in the "good signings" bracket with the likes of Allen.

Rafa made several good signings and top class signings.
So until Brendan gets another Sturridge who is the only player he's signed who is somewhat comparable to Torres/Alonso/Mascherano etc, they shouldn't even be compared.

I was nice to Rafa when I said 17.
Rafa made a few great signings but mostly horrendous ones. You cant argue with that without having some insane agenda. Oh.

 

[Hansern]

And how many of Rafas signings have we end up giving away with paying their wages to get rid off?

 

[Modo]

And how many of Rafas signings have we end up giving away with paying their wages to get rid off?

No doubt he made some wank signings.

 

[keniget]

Rafa bought some amazing players but overall adhered to a rather flawed transfer strategy that ultimately cost him his job. Very frustrating guy.

As for why we are so shit, a big reason for me that I don't think has been highlighted yet is that the club is stuck in this awful situation of trying to keep up the pretense that it's still part of the elite few when in fact it's not.

We can't quite get the top players so when we make statement signings they're riskier or just plain stupid.

And when we buy young players we can't quite afford to let them learn on the job because of the expectations. Even Sterling who is a world class prospect was getting shit early on, which I always thought was mad... not in the least because his performances were never that bad.

There is only one way out and that's inspirational management from top to bottom and we haven't had that in a looooooooong time.