Transfer Policies... How does the move the club forward; a worry for the game?

Do we actually have a policy as such or is it following the model of Hit & Hope?

Seems like it at the moment.

So it looks like we really might be going for this Salah fella, reportedly for around 9m. He seems to be admired by some top clubs and his youtube videos are impressive but it's being said that Sterling would immediately go on loan to swansea if Salah came in. Now, why the hell would we do that with Sterling playing well and scoring goals? And would he be an improvement to the squad or just help to make up the numbers?

Blank cheque - throw enough money at guys and they will come even if the team is not in the CL/challenging for honours. City not long ago were in same boat as us, doing OK but outside CL places. But they threw cash at it, as Chavs had done before, and now, oodles of cash later, those clubs have arguably the strongest squads. The "No bucks, no Buck Rogers" theory.

Without bucks, its bloody hard. As mentioned in thread, need plan, evolve scouting system, uncover gems etc. The latter MUCH easier said than done.  That's why imo BR has done so well so far, in a short time (though accept we have a half season to go). Some signings haven't been great, but others have been really solid. And over time, hopefully he can bring enough quality in, it just won't happen overnight.
He also has the side playing good football, which is really important.
Problem too is keeping the really good guys during a squad 'strengthening period'. We can't be a selling club. That's why the CL is so important - we're kinda stuck in a 'chicken and egg' situation just at the moment, but BR is doing good so far.

I guess we need both. We need FSG to stump up and allow us but 2 or 3 players in the > 20million bracket over the next 12 months at least, at the same time as improving the process of identifying new talent. Piece a cake

So it looks like we really might be going for this Salah fella, reportedly for around 9m. He seems to be admired by some top clubs and his youtube videos are impressive but it's being said that Sterling would immediately go on loan to swansea if Salah came in. Now, why the hell would we do that with Sterling playing well and scoring goals? And would he be an improvement to the squad or just help to make up the numbers?

They've said there's no way in hell Sterling is going on loan but Salah is needed because Sterling has almost no goal threat. His only advantage is his pace which is why I see him as a squad player. Bring him on after 60 minutes when the opposition defenders legs are getting tired and he'll run them ragged. We really need to start moving on our current midfield to the bench and bringing in better players for the first team, allowing us to compete across a greater number of competitions and deal with injuries we pick up. Repeat and rinse as and when we're able to attract better quality players than we have. Move out the least talented, move the others to the bench. If we are going for Salah then this is an example of sensible transfer policy.

Think it was Si that broke Rodgers transfer dealings down in another thread and it was frightening to see how many he trusts and plays.

When you look at what has been spent and what has been paid to agents and then look at the situations of Borini (£12mil), Allen (£15mil) and now Sakho (£18mil), Aspas (£6mil) and Alberto (£7mil) can't get a game its frightening.

Then you look at the loan signings:

Sahin - brought in on loan, played out of position, dropped and sent packing in the next window - he'd be welcome about now I'd assume.

Moses - given game time out of position at the start of the season, looked pretty hopeless there and has looked as hopeless in his favoured position.

Cissokho - looked like a headless chicken and is now behind a 20 year old right back for a start at left back.

With all of the big spenders out there and our sell to buy policy well in effect its vitally important that we carry out our transfer business exceptionally well. Sturridge and Coutinho apart its been a bit of a disaster so far and that's worrying.

I see what you mean here, there have been a few dubious signings but you could give BR a bit more credit. Mignolet, Sakho, Coutinho and Sturridge could very much be the spine of our team in the coming years. All of them have played exceptionally well since signing for Liverpool. Toure on a free transfer was a great piece of business, he is only kept out the team because Skrtel and Sakho have been playing so well. Yeah he doesn't seem to trust Allen and I think was only playing him due to a lack of options. But I still believe that he will have an important role in the team. Aspas he shouldn't have signed in the first place but still you could say that he is allowing these players (Aspas and Alberto) to adapt to the PL. Cissokho and Moses realistically were only brought in for cover.

The one thing you can say about players like Alberto, Borini, and Allen is that they are still young and have a lot of time to improve. Saying that, Rodgers needs to focus on bringing in first team players this window not 'one for the future, up and coming, next season squad players'.

Blank cheque - throw enough money at guys and they will come even if the team is not in the CL/challenging for honours. City not long ago were in same boat as us, doing OK but outside CL places. But they threw cash at it, as Chavs had done before, and now, oodles of cash later, those clubs have arguably the strongest squads. The "No bucks, no Buck Rogers" theory.

Without bucks, its bloody hard. As mentioned in thread, need plan, evolve scouting system, uncover gems etc. The latter MUCH easier said than done.  That's why imo BR has done so well so far, in a short time (though accept we have a half season to go). Some signings haven't been great, but others have been really solid. And over time, hopefully he can bring enough quality in, it just won't happen overnight.
He also has the side playing good football, which is really important.
Problem too is keeping the really good guys during a squad 'strengthening period'. We can't be a selling club. That's why the CL is so important - we're kinda stuck in a 'chicken and egg' situation just at the moment, but BR is doing good so far.

I guess we need both. We need FSG to stump up and allow us but 2 or 3 players in the > 20million bracket over the next 12 months at least, at the same time as improving the process of identifying new talent. Piece a cake

FSG have stated on more than one occasion that they will not throw loadsa money at Brendan, the idea of them paying 20m for one player takes some believing, 2 or 3 at 20m is beyond the bounds.
BR is manager of LFC because he can pull rabbits out of hats, unfortunately the owners depend on the manager's wizardry to keep the club financially viable, nothing in that statement suggests winning trophies is part of the deal.

FSG have stated on more than one occasion that they will not throw loadsa money at Brendan, the idea of them paying 20m for one player takes some believing, 2 or 3 at 20m is beyond the bounds.
BR is manager of LFC because he can pull rabbits out of hats, unfortunately the owners depend on the manager's wizardry to keep the club financially viable, nothing in that statement suggests winning trophies is part of the deal.

To quote Mr Loaf, even two outa three wouldn't be bad. And 20mill ain't even ridiculous money by a long way - if we can't get some guys in this (or higher) bracket (and btw, BR could argue if he gets the right 20mill guy, he might be worth 40mill in 2 years) I can't realistically see how we'll make the step ups we need to make.
Sahko cost a fair chunk of change for a defender, so I reckon they can be convinced. If BR can not just make a good argument, but show that he is heading in the right direction in the PL (and possibly Cup too), I reckon he'll be able to make one, maybe two (maybe even 3 ?) *big* signings this year.
Or maybe the Christmas splurge season has rotted my brain and this is pie in the sky (certainly rotted the old stomach).

I can't see FSG going back on their transfer strategy, they believe they can turn our fortunes around without spending big money (they also believe in Santa, Fairys and the Lough Ness monster). They don't seem to me to be the type of guys to admit their strategy for success in Baseball doesn't translate to football.

Whilst i'd agree that Brendan's dealings are hit and miss its interesting that providing we get badu and salah (or a physical midfielder and a winger) in January we may need to do very little business in the summer apart from perhaps keep Assaidi and suso

Mignolet, jones
Johnson,Kelly
Flanagan,Enrique
Agger,sakho,skrtel,Ilori, toure
Lucas,badu/m'villa, Allen, suso, Henderson, coutinho, Alberto, Gerrard
Sterling, salah
Assaidi, ibe
Suarez, Sturridge , aspas

Plus selling Coates, borini, Reina and wisdom would allow further strengthening if required. Whilst left wing looks weak salah or sterling could potentially be an inverted winger.

So somehow the squad is close to being balanced and needs minor tweaks only despite the hit and miss approach. Perhaps he has done better than we think

I can't see FSG going back on their transfer strategy, they believe they can turn our fortunes around without spending big money (they also believe in Santa, Fairys and the Lough Ness monster). They don't seem to me to be the type of guys to admit their strategy for success in Baseball doesn't translate to football.

Yea, maybe so. Also depends what constitutes *big* money. 20mill? 30mill? 40mill? 60mill etc.  We were in for Costa, and Willian, both in the 25-30mill range I think, and looked like we were serious (though guess can't be sure they'd have actually shelled out).  Have they said they won't spend above a certain figure?

Yea, maybe so. Also depends what constitutes *big* money. 20mill? 30mill? 40mill? 60mill etc.  We were in for Costa, and Willian, both in the 25-30mill range I think, and looked like we were serious (though guess can't be sure they'd have actually shelled out).  Have they said they won't spend above a certain figure?

Personally, I would consider anything over 30 million as "Big" money.
20 million is what I would consider to be a reasonable amount to spend on individual players capable of making an instant impact, and help a team challenge for the title.
Its unreasonable to expect a manager to compete for the title on a regular basis if he has to take a gamble on unknown quantities like Aspas and Alberto.

The only "transfer policy" that works is one in which you have almost unlimited funds to pay big fees and huge wages.

The hilarious pontificating a few years ago when FSG came in about "Moneyball" strategies still makes me chuckle. You have a strategy that fits your budget.

If your budget isn't big enough and you buy players with "sell on value" you may well come out in front from a cash-flow POV, but you won't F***ing win anything.

United splashed out £24m on Van Persie. Not to make any money on him, but to win the title. Which he did.

It doesn't matter what our strategy is - without new, mega-rich owners who can bankroll a huge squad of expensive players on large wages, we won't win the title, and the clubs that do, will.

We can only afford a few "outlier" players like Gerrard, Suarez, Johnson on massive wages, and hope that the likes of Sturridge, Coutinho, Sterling et al can step up. Because it doesn't matter how much you spend, every signing is a risk, and not every signing works out; no player can maintain form and fitness all season.

Which is why you need lots of quality in the squad. City have Aguero, Dzeko, Jovetic and Negredo for two places. They all cost upwards of £25m. They have midfield support from any three of Silva, Toure, Fernandinho, Garcia, Navas, Nasri and Milner. That's c.£160m worth of fees.

Chelsea have the most amazing array of attacking talent in Hazard, Willian, Oscar, Mata, Schurrle. All cost between 20 and £30m.

Transfer strategies are worthless. It's all about money if you want to win the title.

Do we actually have a policy as such or is it following the model of Hit & Hope?

Every transfer is "hit and hope".

It's just that when you buy three players for £5-10 each, and three players for £20-30m each, your chances of "hit" increases.

Every transfer is "hit and hope".

It's just that when you buy three players for £5-10 each, and three players for £20-30m each, your chances of "hit" increases.

Really??  Roman doesn't agree 

Roman doesn't agree

I don't know about that 'debs: I know he might be hard to please but his £20m-£30m players have brought him the European, Europa and FA Cups in the last two years alone.

All the systems/formations/football philosophies in the world work better with quality players. That quality, more often than not, costs and teams with quality players win titles and trophies. Roman knows this. 

I don't know about that 'debs: I know he might be hard to please but his £20m-£30m players have brought him the European, Europa and FA Cups in the last two years alone.

All the systems/formations/football philosophies in the world work better with quality players. That quality, more often than not, costs and teams with quality players win titles and trophies. Roman knows this. 

I was thinking more in terms of judas mate and also not all those 'young' players @ £20m plus are featuring for them, some are still out on loan.  £90m worth of players are out on loan from the chavs, that's almost the value of our starting 11 

Would be unbelievable for us to one day be in that position but it's highly unlikely.

I only remember Roman's £50m miss. We sold well on that deal.

I only remember Roman's £50m miss. We sold well on that deal.

 

The only "transfer policy" that works is one in which you have almost unlimited funds to pay big fees and huge wages.

The hilarious pontificating a few years ago when FSG came in about "Moneyball" strategies still makes me chuckle. You have a strategy that fits your budget.

If your budget isn't big enough and you buy players with "sell on value" you may well come out in front from a cash-flow POV, but you won't f**king win anything.

United splashed out £24m on Van Persie. Not to make any money on him, but to win the title. Which he did.

It doesn't matter what our strategy is - without new, mega-rich owners who can bankroll a huge squad of expensive players on large wages, we won't win the title, and the clubs that do, will.

We can only afford a few "outlier" players like Gerrard, Suarez, Johnson on massive wages, and hope that the likes of Sturridge, Coutinho, Sterling et al can step up. Because it doesn't matter how much you spend, every signing is a risk, and not every signing works out; no player can maintain form and fitness all season.

Which is why you need lots of quality in the squad. City have Aguero, Dzeko, Jovetic and Negredo for two places. They all cost upwards of £25m. They have midfield support from any three of Silva, Toure, Fernandinho, Garcia, Navas, Nasri and Milner. That's c.£160m worth of fees.

Chelsea have the most amazing array of attacking talent in Hazard, Willian, Oscar, Mata, Schurrle. All cost between 20 and £30m.

Transfer strategies are worthless. It's all about money if you want to win the title.

Spending that money does give you a chance but it doesn't guarantee anything. Dortmund won the Bundesliga two years in a row despite Bayern spending a ton on players.
Atletico is currently ahead of Madrid and even on points with Barcelona despite both of those clubs spending huge amounts every year.
Juve has won two straight Serie A titles without breaking the bank.
The idea that you cannot win without spending ridiculous amounts is simply false.

The idea that you cannot win without spending ridiculous amounts is simply false.

And yet the evidence of the previous winners of the Premier League suggests the complete opposite. Forget Italy, Germany, Spain wherever. Just look at our league asnd show me the club who haven't spent a fortune that have been champions. I can't think of any since Arsenal and of course that was in a very different climate. 

The idea that you cannot win without spending ridiculous amounts is simply false

The idea that you can win without spending ridiculous amounts if the others are spending ridiculous amounts is false.

The only "transfer policy" that works is one in which you have almost unlimited funds to pay big fees and huge wages.

The hilarious pontificating a few years ago when FSG came in about "Moneyball" strategies still makes me chuckle. You have a strategy that fits your budget.

If your budget isn't big enough and you buy players with "sell on value" you may well come out in front from a cash-flow POV, but you won't f**king win anything.

United splashed out £24m on Van Persie. Not to make any money on him, but to win the title. Which he did.

It doesn't matter what our strategy is - without new, mega-rich owners who can bankroll a huge squad of expensive players on large wages, we won't win the title, and the clubs that do, will.

We can only afford a few "outlier" players like Gerrard, Suarez, Johnson on massive wages, and hope that the likes of Sturridge, Coutinho, Sterling et al can step up. Because it doesn't matter how much you spend, every signing is a risk, and not every signing works out; no player can maintain form and fitness all season.

Which is why you need lots of quality in the squad. City have Aguero, Dzeko, Jovetic and Negredo for two places. They all cost upwards of £25m. They have midfield support from any three of Silva, Toure, Fernandinho, Garcia, Navas, Nasri and Milner. That's c.£160m worth of fees.

Chelsea have the most amazing array of attacking talent in Hazard, Willian, Oscar, Mata, Schurrle. All cost between 20 and £30m.

Transfer strategies are worthless. It's all about money if you want to win the title.

What about Arsenal? Yeah, okay they spent £40 odd million on Ozil, but the rest of the squad is largely made up of transfers that would be within the budget of LFC.

Yes, they might not win the league, but they are challengers and do look like a club that can win the league. To be honest, I would be happy with a couple of consistent years making the top four and then a challenge for the title - it's pretty difficult to go from 7th to 1st in one swoop.

Realistically, we are not a title challenging team - we are a top four challenging team and the transfers at the moment will dictate that position until we are ready. We cannot afford to blow £40 million on one player who isn't even worth it - you want us to get into financial difficulties again? We don't exactly have a bottomless pit of money. A substantial transfer fund is what's needed, but a massive one could be reckless. Does anyone think FSG will provide substantial funds? This is where I have concerns - substantial would be £50-60 million, not massive like Man City but enough to do a good job. I'm not sure if FSG would give us that at the moment.

Rodgers said in his first press conference he would outsmart rather than outbid other teams - proof of Coutinho and Sturridge backing up the managers words. But for every Countinho, we have a Moses and for every Sturridge we have a Borini. This is the issue I have with FSG - I may be wrong, but I feel they expect Rodgers to wave a magic wand and make a bargain out of every player. Unless Football Manager Genie Scout existed in real life, these deals more often than not are not going to pull off whatever the manager.

And yet the evidence of the previous winners of the Premier League suggests the complete opposite. Forget Italy, Germany, Spain wherever. Just look at our league asnd show me the club who haven't spent a fortune that have been champions. I can't think of any since Arsenal and of course that was in a very different climate. 

Forget about some of the wealthiest clubs in the world? Recent titles have been won by United, City, and Chelsea. United have spent a decent amount but not close to that of Chelsea abd City. They payed 30m roughly for van Persie but we have shown that we are willing to spend just as much under FSG. Not only that but they did a lot of their big spending from the Ronaldo money.