The Transfer Committee Thread

BR said the exact same thing, in that he had the first and last word on any transfer.

The "committee" hasn't changed, just the manager and assuming there was a disconnect there I expect Klopp to overcome any problems.

The whole thing is made weird by Rodgers helping bring about the Committee and then, purportedly, not using the players signed by it or semi-blackmailing to get his targets in.  None of what has come out has painted Brendan in a good light

The whole thing is made weird by Rodgers helping bring about the Committee and then, purportedly, not using the players signed by it or semi-blackmailing to get his targets in.  None of what has come out has painted Brendan in a good light

I agree that it doesn't paint Brendan in a good light in fact if it is true that he deliberately picked players based on who signed them rather than ability to the detriment of LFC he should have been sacked for that reason alone (as I said a few pages back) .

I do however think that the TC was not set up as Brendan envisaged it would be. I think he was expecting the more usual set up where the TC advised and he had the final word, rather than the TC decided often over-ruling his choice limiting him to saying yes or no.

I agree that it doesn't paint Brendan in a good light in fact if it is true that he deliberately picked players based on who signed them rather than ability to the detriment of LFC he should have been sacked for that reason alone (as I said a few pages back) .

I do however think that the TC was not set up as Brendan envisaged it would be. I think he was expecting the more usual set up where the TC advised and he had the final word, rather than the TC decided often over-ruling his choice limiting him to saying yes or no.

I'm actually thankful they did curtail his choices, if what has come out is proved to be true.  I'm also sure Rodgers knew what he was getting into, I think he'll regret the refusal of a DoF though.

I agree that it doesn't paint Brendan in a good light in fact if it is true that he deliberately picked players based on who signed them rather than ability to the detriment of LFC he should have been sacked for that reason alone (as I said a few pages back) .

I do however think that the TC was not set up as Brendan envisaged it would be. I think he was expecting the more usual set up where the TC advised and he had the final word, rather than the TC decided often over-ruling his choice limiting him to saying yes or no.

Brendan is a headworker. You might need to explain that to some people but Brendan would say what he thought would get him what he wanted even if it contradicted himself many times. He took a job given to him by inexperienced people and he bluffed his way through it as best he could.

I see what you're saying and It was a strange article BUT wasn't sterling 16 at the time? It's a significant chunk of change for a kid who might not make it.

Also we didn't get Assaidi "from Morocco", he grew up in Amsterdam we got him from heerenveen. He is of Moroccan descent and represents them internationally.

The standard of journalism shocks me sometimes.

the suso bit as well, this is/was someone highly rated in the Spanish national youth set up so signing him wasn't a shot in the dark like Luis Alberto etc.

I'm actually thankful they did curtail his choices, if what has come out is proved to be true.  I'm also sure Rodgers knew what he was getting into, I think he'll regret the refusal of a DoF though.

I think a lot depends on who you believe, I would certainly have preferred Michel Vorm, Christian Eriksen, Wilfried Bony and Diego Costa who Brendan apparently wanted us to sign rather than some of the players we did actually buy, although Dempsey Ashley Williams and Ryan Bertrand I could quite easily live without.

I don't think he did know what he was getting into mate or I don't think he would have threatened to resign so early into his reign over Allen.

I am sure looking back he will have many regrets, a D.O.F. being just one.

Costa for example, apparently he wanted to sign Costa very early in his reign while Costa was still playing wing back (I never knew Costa played wing back but there you go!)

Yes I know, maybe that's why he played everyone and his brother at wing back while he was here.

I agree that it doesn't paint Brendan in a good light in fact if it is true that he deliberately picked players based on who signed them rather than ability to the detriment of LFC he should have been sacked for that reason alone (as I said a few pages back) .

I do however think that the TC was not set up as Brendan envisaged it would be. I think he was expecting the more usual set up where the TC advised and he had the final word, rather than the TC decided often over-ruling his choice limiting him to saying yes or no.

To think BR had the ultimate decision on signing is naïve and affected. It would of coarse exonerate the FSG appointed TC and allow them to continue with their analytical experiment in soccer.
JWH has hopefully realised the facts and figures that brought him success and reward on the financial markets are not a viable ingredient in the quest for a Prem League title.

Ashley Williams is an interesting one. Wales have an enviable record in defence and he has been a good centre half for many a year. He's 31 now and apparently Brendan was after him pretty much from day one. He may not be everyones cup of tea, but does anybody seriously believe he wouldn't be in our team if we had him now?

Ashley Williams is an interesting one. Wales have an enviable record in defence and he has been a good centre half for many a year. He's 31 now and apparently Brendan was after him pretty much from day one. He may not be everyones cup of tea, but does anybody seriously believe he wouldn't be in our team if we had him now?

I'm sure he would mate, but didn't Swansea want near enough £20mill for him. I do think he would have done a much better job of organising our defence than Lovren did, I know we paid that for Lovren but he's only 26. 
 

I'm sure he would mate, but didn't Swansea want near enough £20mill for him. I do think he would have done a much better job of organising our defence than Lovren did, I know we paid that for Lovren but he's only 26. 
 

Yep. Looks like we splashed the cash on the wrong one there.

It's time people realised most of our defensive problems have arisen from a dysfunctional midfield offering zero protection.
That's not to say the CB partnerships have not acted like Laurel and Hardy at times. Migs is also a major contributor to the jittery behaviour at the back.

You can put Cannavaro and Nesta in that back 4 and I garantee the same problems.

Rodgers just never got the hang of how to transition the team from attack to defence. It was always like the Iraqi army in retreat!

And we are back where we were 5 pages and three arguments ago

And I'm sure that wasn't your intention when posting the article. 

The Suso trick was cute though.

And I'm sure that wasn't your intention when posting the article. 

The Suso trick was cute though.

I think you are getting a little touchy and losing your sense of humour mate.

Tony Barrett
Last updated at 12:14PM, October 7 2015

As ever, the sacking of a manager at one of the country’s leading clubs has led, irrepressibly and depressingly, to an inevitable and counter-productive bout of blood-letting. No sooner had the termination of Brendan Rodgers’s contract been announced when fingers began being pointed, either at the Northern Irishman himself or at some of those he worked alongside, particularly the now notorious transfer committee.
For those who believe Rodgers was hard done by, Michael Edwards, Liverpool’s director of performance analysis, has become a convenient scapegoat; a bogeyman with a laptop who should follow Rodgers out of the club. For those who believe Rodgers had only himself to blame, his departure was not just merited, it was overdue and the role played by anyone else is largely irrelevant, particularly as Jürgen Klopp is about to arrive and make everything better.
In one sense, everyone is right and everyone is wrong. It is about individuals but it is not. It is about who is good and who is not so good but it is also about whether or not they brought out the best in one another. It is about who signed this player and who signed that player, but it is also about how much chance they had to succeed when a twin-track strategy was being pursued.
More than anything else, though, it is about strategy and vision and that was set neither by Rodgers nor Edwards, it was determined by Liverpool’s owners, Fenway Sports Group (FSG). The battleplan belonged to them, not to their generals, be they “football men” or “laptop gurus,” they just put it into practice, albeit to increasingly poor effect.
Everything Liverpool have done in the transfer market over the last three years has been far too complicated and far too driven by a desire for value, hence 31 players being signed at a cost of almost £300 million in that period. It has also been undermined by the horse-trading which went on within the committee system which saw the manager get one pick and his colleagues get another (although that failing was less evident in the summer when, aside from Roberto Firmino, all of the acquisitions were at Rodgers’ request).
Again, this was totally inevitable with the appointment of a manager who made it plain from the outset that he wished to stand or fall by his own decisions. The collegiate approach that Liverpool were looking for was not one that Rodgers wanted to subscribe to, albeit it was one that he signed up to when joining the club and one which he accepted again when signing a new, long-term contract in the summer of 2014. Clearly, Rodgers wanted to change things from within, to become first among equals to an even greater extent, and that never happened.
That left a fudge in which no-one was able to get exactly what they wanted. It also resulted in a team featuring some players that the manager wanted and some that he was not so keen on. It also left the manager in a situation in which the increasingly urgent need to win football matches was accompanied by the political need to incorporate signings that he clearly was not convinced by. At times, Rodgers veered towards his own men – Lallana over Markovic, Lovren over Markovic being examples – and at others he went with the committee’s choices. Everywhere you looked, there were compromises that attempted to please everyone but ended up serving the best interests of no-one.
Inevitably, being the manager, Rodgers paid the price with his job. The question that is now being asked, though, is whether others should accompany him through the exit door? It is a legitimate point to make too. Rodgers no more failed on his own than he succeeded on his own when Liverpool became one of European football’s most exciting teams in 2013/14. Accountability is all well and good but if you have a collegiate system, surely blame, along with any credit, should be shared? In politics, collective responsibility is regarded as a virtue, in football it is yet to exist as Rodgers himself demonstrated by sacrificing two members of his coaching staff in June.
FSG’s view, though, is that the players that Liverpool have are better than they have been showing. Again, this is debatable. Can Klopp really turn Simon Mignolet into a commanding goalkeeper, Lovren into a defender who does not panic when the ball is in his vicinity or Emre Can into a midfielder whose technical ability is not undermined by an ongoing energy crisis? The jury has to be out, even though Klopp does have a remarkable record of helping players to achieve their full potential just through the brilliance of his coaching.
The point now is that we are going to find out, one way or another. Klopp is more than willing to work with a committee, having operated under a director of football to great effect at Borussia Dortmund, and like the majority of modern coaches would prefer others to get their hands dirty in the transfer market while he gets on with the business of making the football team better. His record in player development means that FSG’s entire vision is about to be put to the kind of test which will either make or break it. Should Liverpool fall short under his management, it is inconceivable that he will be the only one to lose his job.
But as well as Edwards and whichever other committee members people choose to focus on, FSG need to look at themselves and ask whether or not their preferred strategy gives either manager or number crunchers the best possible chance of success. By appointing Klopp, they are showing a commendable, if belated, adherence to the idea that an obvious solution is obvious for a reason. For all the science that people in football try to blind us with, one truism remains – clubs that win things tend to have the best managers and the best players. Targeting Klopp shows FSG have accepted that reality on the managerial front; now they need to do the same when it comes to player acquisitions.
Liverpool can be excused, at least to some extent, for falling short on the basis of their spending power in terms of wages in comparison to Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea and Arsenal. But what they cannot be excused for is using their financial resources as ineffectively as they have, which has cost them any chance of overcoming that disparity. With £300 million spent on 31 players in three years, funds have been spread too thinly and player turnover has been far too high. Quality over quantity has to become their mantra from hereonin.
There will be an argument, again a legitimate one, that it is harder for Liverpool to attract top players, and that when they do become available they will inevitably be drawn to clubs who are regulars in the Champions League and those with a proven recent record of success. Until Liverpool achieve those objectives themselves they are undoubtedly at a disadvantage. Going head to head with Manchester City over Kevin De Bruyne during the most recent transfer window, for example, would have ended in defeat, with a great deal of time and effort having been wasted.
Yet City, albeit armed with the wealth of a Sheikh, have shown that if the best players are offered the best terms they will come. Liverpool now have to do that to the best of their ability but for this to happen, their aversion to paying elite salaries has to end.
Upon taking over the club almost five years ago, John W Henry, the principal owner, talked of some of the contracts he had inherited from the previous owners as “time bombs.” He was right too. Liverpool were a club paying Champions League salaries without playing Champions League football, and financial stability had to be restored.
That has now happened, much to FSG’s credit, albeit with significant help from sky-rocketing television revenues, and Liverpool are now in a position to speculate to accumulate once more. Having operated in the hit and miss section of the transfer market in recent years, regardless of how much they spent, they now need to take a step up and at least fight their corner when players of proven quality become available.
If the committee they have in place are as good as FSG believe them to be, then maybe they will flourish but even if they do not, then at least we will get to find out one way or another whether they are fit for purpose. As it is, all we know for sure is that the strategy as it was, with Rodgers and committee members working alongside one another in the uneasiest of truces, was doomed to fail. Anything else just comes down to which side of the blood-letting people wish to place themselves on.
permalink

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/clubs/liverpool/article4578829.ece

Maybe you will find this article by Barratt more to your liking? Seems to be making many of the same points I have been trying to make over the past few pages.... so of course I think its a good one

I had to stop reading when he thought that Rogers picked Lovren over Markovic. Although his points do make sense sometimes to me and I do sometimes agree. I get the impression that Barrett at his core is a bullshit artist who doesn't really know what he's talking about.

I had to stop reading when he thought that Rogers picked Lovren over Markovic. Although his points do make sense sometimes to me and I do sometimes agree. I get the impression that Barrett at his core is a bullshit artist who doesn't really know what he's talking about.

I think he is a very good journalist who also happens to be a LFC fan.

Most if his articles re Liverpool have turned out to be correct. I think you have mistaken him for Pearce who seemed to be completely up Rodgers arse.

I think he is a very good journalist who also happens to be a LFC fan.

Most if his articles re Liverpool have turned out to be correct. I think you have mistaken him for Pearce who seemed to be completely up Rodgers arse.

Perhaps mate I'll have to read up a little on both and see.

I had to stop reading when he thought that Rogers picked Lovren over Markovic. Although his points do make sense sometimes to me and I do sometimes agree. I get the impression that Barrett at his core is a bullshit artist who doesn't really know what he's talking about.

Think he meant Sakho, mate.

Think he meant Sakho, mate.

He did.

Think he meant Sakho, mate.

How can a journalist not proof read his work. Sloppy and unprofessional. But like I said, I'll read over some more of his stuff to make sure I'm not getting him mixed up with someone else.

How can a journalist not proof read his work. Sloppy and unprofessional. But like I said, I'll read over some more of his stuff to make sure I'm not getting him mixed up with someone else.

Barrett is pretty well respected mate.

Just followed him on Twitter, will have to read and see how I feel.

Just followed him on Twitter, will have to read and see how I feel.

I love how you're not taking out word for it Mags.

Good man

People are getting very picky about the articles being posted. Firstly complaining about the source, then complaining about who's written it, then complaining about the quality and now complaining about this one because he didn't proof read it and got one players name transcribed twice.

If I belonged to a minority group I might start thinking it was because of that, sadly I now have to think it's just cos it's me.