Liverpool may ditch transfer committee as they look to change recruitment policy

Liverpool may ditch transfer committee as they look to change recruitment policy this summer

It will be a busy summer of transfer activity at Liverpool with at least 10 players and probably more expected to leave
By Jason Burt 25 Apr 2015

Brendan Rodgers is expected to survive as Liverpool manager into next season but could there be some changes in how the club goes about recruiting players this summer?

One suggestion is that the Fenway Sports Group, which owns Liverpool, might want to appoint a director of football/ general manager to assist Rodgers.

This would raise questions over whether the much-debated transfer committee – which is headed by the manager – will be broken up, or at least revamped, following some disappointing signings in recent windows.

The committee includes Rodgers, Mike Gordon, a Liverpool director who also sits on FSG’s board, chief executive Ian Ayre, head of performance and analysis Michael Edwards along with chief scout Barry Hunter and Dave Fallows, the head of recruitment.

Mario Balotelli has been one of several disappointing signings
The spotlight is likely to fall on Hunter and Fallows in particular, and how effective they have been, when FSG carry out their usual end-of-season review of how Liverpool have performed.

Whether they re-shape the committee or even take the step of appointing a director of football – something Rodgers has opposed in the past – remains to seen but certainly there will be a reckoning over the signings that have been made and just how many have proved a success.

Even if a change is made to the way Liverpool conduct their transfers there will not be a wavering in the principle of signing players of potential which FSG have insisted upon.

Either way it will be a busy summer of transfer activity at Liverpool with at least 10 players and probably more expected to leave.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/11563643/Liverpool-may-ditch-transfer-committee-as-they-look-to-change-recruitment-policy-this-summer.html

Needs to happen yesterday.

Needs to happen yesterday.

Yes but if all we ever do is the below then nothing will really change.

Even if a change is made to the way Liverpool conduct their transfers there will not be a wavering in the principle of signing players of potential which FSG have insisted upon.

Yes but if all we ever do is the below then nothing will really change.

We signed Lambert and Balotelli, neither really fitting that bill. But yes, we need to stop targeting only kids.

We signed Lambert and Balotelli, neither really fitting that bill. But yes, we need to stop targeting only kids.

If the above is true a lot of people are going to be upset with him still being around...going to be a long summer on this board.

They'll just ditch the name, it'll be the same and still be much like it is at most clubs, without people going ape sh*t over a name.

Damian Commolli wasn't perfect, but he makes Fallows and Edwards look like a really sh*t tribute act in comparison!

Less Luis Albertos and the like please. Infuriating how much money has been spent on players that have barely played for us. Insane.

They'll just ditch the name, it'll be the same and still be much like it is at most clubs, without people going ape sh*t over a name.

Exactly. Which, as you said, is not wholly different now than how most clubs operate, especially European teams.

Needs to happen yesterday.

The committee as an organisation isn't the problem. There's clearly been a failure in scouting and far too much emphasis placed upon statistics and the money men having a greater say than the footballing people but so long as the policy of only investing in potential remains, the problems at the club will be ongoing. In short, nothing will change. I want to see the policy gone. Either the player is right fit for the club or he's not. Age should not come in to it.

IF this is true, then it is a good start in theory towards a process of elimination which has seen us spunk some silly money. I think a DoF would be a good idea and Rodgers may have to rethink his stance on working with one; he's in no position to call the shots here. The pair of them would just have to work together on prospect purchases - no biggie. I just hope it isn't as Roddenberry suggested, same can different label.

IF this is true, it's also good to know that they are not going to scapegoat the manager like many on here do, and use him as fodder for those with pitchforks. It's not as simple as saying the manager 'simply isn't up to it', there's more going on here and it's best to explore these avenues first than just giving the manager the axe. It's the 'easy way out', which in time could prove to be a superficial move unless readjustments aren't made behind the scenes.

I'd much rather hope this avenue is explored, although the writer of the article left a snag there at the end about buying potential. But as others have pointed out we don't always buy potential, maybe just older more experienced players who are willing to take a pay cut 

What I do know, IF this is true with regards to Rodgers staying on is, those who are unhappy with him and blame him for all our woes, including the adjectives he uses in post match conferences effecting the fan-base and team, his tan or his teeth, or the fact that Pascoe doesn't knock him out, on the sideline during every game is, these kind of assertions will be used again. Perhaps more extravagantly next time, to snipe away at the manager, and to ensure forum life is as difficult and as miserable as possible for those who are willing to give the manager the benefit of the doubt.

P.S. I understand some are genuinely unhappy and see that Rodgers should take the brunt of the blame, fair enough. I also see those on here who have an agenda though and these are the snipers that I take umbridge with.

funny how everyone gave Poyet a bollocking last season when he said Suarez was the reason we were so high up in the table, and yet this season now that he is gone and we're no longer up there, everyone suddenly says "we were always going to struggle without Suarez...." etc etc.

If this was to happen will Rodgers stay as Im sure he was adamant when appointed he would not work under a DoF. Hence the compromise of a TC.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/jun/01/brendan-rodgers-liverpool-control

Monchi from Seville being touted as DoF don't know much about him though.

funny how everyone gave Poyet a bollocking last season when he said Suarez was the reason we were so high up in the table, and yet this season now that he is gone and we're no longer up there, everyone suddenly says "we were always going to struggle without Suarez...." etc etc.

Didn't he say we'd be a mid table side without him? We aren't really that but yeah I think it was reasonable to say [like a lot did] that a title challenge may turn to a top 4 challenge

Not quite mid table though, but way to go with the sensationalism 



So if this TC is restructed.. How many mistake and reshuffles can the owners get away with in 5 years 

F**k up after f**k up with the policy but just rip it up.. Put it down to still learning and get nowhere

Good job

Let's go fsg *clap clap* let's go fsg *clap clap* let's go fsg

Monchi from Seville being touted as DoF don't know much about him though.

Has he read moneyball?

Or at least seen the film?

But knows the outline of it?

Someone told him the rough storyline?

Yeah?

Oh...

Is he young?

Would Barca want him as a DOF in a few years?

Or Madrid?

Ok Bayern?

Oh...

Can he bullshit ?

Ride a motorbike?

Come out with tag lines about competing with anyone in the market??

Here to win and stuff?

Can talk in cliches to the press?

Talk a good game?

Right..

Ok

Well

Hang on

He's read moneyball?

He will at least read it on the plane on his way?

Get him in

So BR survives the shuffle and gains an ''assistant''.
Memories of Damian Comolli ''assisting'' Kenny Dalglish spring to mind.

Could this be seen as a way forward?
Maybe sideways?

Surely comparing past questionable activities is going backwards in actual fact and theoretically.

funny how everyone gave Poyet a bollocking last season when he said Suarez was the reason we were so high up in the table, and yet this season now that he is gone and we're no longer up there, everyone suddenly says "we were always going to struggle without Suarez...." etc etc.

Poyet was being disrespectful to the rest of the team, every player contributed last season, bar maybe Johnson.
Take any clubs star player away, and they will be worse off than they were, I'd fear for Madrid without Ronaldo, some players are just that important.

As I've said before, the real problem is not that we signed a load of bad players ( we didn't), its that we stuck too rigidly to to the policy of only signing promising players, or would- be bargain buys. ( The only exception to this being Lallana, not Balo or Lambert).

Above all, we wouldn't spend the wages on a proven top class striker.
I suspect that that is a result of the owners policy, which the transfer commitee were just following.

The policy of singing almost entirely up and coming players, and accepting that this is going to be a hit-and-miss process, were you get an Aspas and an Alberto for very Coutinho, is a policy that I think can actually work ( and if you dont have the mega-bucks it may be your best bet). But you need to have a bit of flexibility and footballing intelligence, were you always have at least a couple of proven top-class experienced guys in amongst the up-and-comers. Last season we had Suarez and Gerrard. This season we just had ( a somewhat fading) Gerrard.

So the owners need to get more flexible with their policy/wage structure, and be prepared to spend top wages on 1 or 2 players, instead of trying to cut it so fine and keeping their fingers crossed that the up and comers instantly all work out. Otherwise its unlikely to make much difference if its a tranfer commitee or a director of football.

They'll just ditch the name, it'll be the same and still be much like it is at most clubs, without people going ape sh*t over a name.

Yep.

Could this be seen as a way forward?

Or better still... as an admission, yet a-F***ing-gain, that FSG have got it wrong?

Nah; too much to hope for - after all we should be grateful that they aren't Hicks & Gillett... *tugs forelock in gratitude, wrings hands, says "I'm ever so humble" and backs out of room like a good toadie. 

Or better still... as an admission, yet a-F***ing-gain, that FSG have got it wrong?

Nah; too much to hope for - after all we should be grateful that they aren't Hicks & Gillett... *tugs forelock in gratitude, wrings hands, says "I'm ever so humble" and backs out of room like a good toadie. 

We have to hope that a change to the 'committee' also means a change in policy and thinking Mouse.

They can change the structure and can it what they want but if those put in place instead still have to work under the same policy then I don't see any difference.

I guess this means we won't be in for Danny Ings this summer then?

If so all I can say is A-fookin-Men to that.

I'm not buying it though.

Or better still... as an admission, yet a-F***ing-gain, that FSG have got it wrong?

Nah; too much to hope for - after all we should be grateful that they aren't Hicks & Gillett... *tugs forelock in gratitude, wrings hands, says "I'm ever so humble" and backs out of room like a good toadie. 

Uriah Heep on the board as well!!
No great surprise there.

I guess this means we won't be in for Danny Ings this summer then?

Looks like you missed this part Scotty sorry...

Even if a change is made to the way Liverpool conduct their transfers there will not be a wavering in the principle of signing players of potential which FSG have insisted upon.

Then again; there are many out there who still deny such a policy exists and (even in the face of all evidence) they might be right so we can only live in hope.