i doubt anybody here would know the reason.
Ever since John Henry took over the club it's almost as if he has made it his mission to hire his pals in senior positions of power.
You would think that with John Henry being an owner who is not very hands on, in rather wanting to be in the background of things he would go out of his way to hire the very best people to activley run the club. This is a stark contrast to Sheikh Mansour who despite hiring an experienced football chairman in Khaldoon Al Mubarak as the club's chairman, has actively gone out and secured the best personnel in world football to help the chairman with the running of the club.
We instead have a former TV producer who has no prior experience in football being the chairman of the club in Tom Werner. This then brings us on to Mike Gordon, who despite having no football related experience plays an active role in making boardroom decisions concerning how the club's recruitment policy should be run, with him making a rare public appearance in September of last year to educate fans as to how how " wins and losses are made on the pitch not in the transfer market".
This finally brings us on to Micheal Edwards, another questionable appointment considering his lack of a proven track record, clout and connections in the world of football with there being concerns that this appointment was rather in the best interest of FSG as opposed to the club. For a club of our standing in the game, in making the best use of the little resources that we have, we are chancing an awful lot in schooling a DOF instead of hiring someone who is proven at the top level.
Considering how bad FSG have been at PR this totally the opposite of what was needed considering the growing negativity of the fan base in regards to them, I think that this could be one of the worst appointments they have made, right up there with promoting Micheal Edwards.
Last edited by MrDilkington; 21-3-17 at 09:44.
As for micheal edwards, he has been involved in football for about 13years. He is coming in to a position that is something jurgen klopp wanted!!!
“This decision is hugely positive for us and it will make us better and stronger in managing the process of building and retaining playing talent at all age groups. Development is so important and it makes sense to have a position, within the football structure specifically, that focuses on where we can improve.
“It’s no secret I like the concept of a sporting director and having worked under this model previously I have found it to be nothing but positive and forward-thinking.
“Michael is absolutely the right person for this. He has the knowledge, expertise and personality to flourish in the role and I was delighted when he told me he would be accepting the position.
“Importantly, he also has a fantastic team of people around him, who have all played a significant role in putting together the talent we currently have in the first team, development squad and at even younger age levels.”*
That is what klopp said. Now imagine if the club did not give klopp this way of working, we would never hear the end of it! We keep hearing how the club 'must back klopp'. Well here you have it and fsg are getting blasted for it? Insane!
It's well documented especially by Klopp's own agent that he doesn't actually sign players in dealing with transfer negotiations with players clubs and agents so forth, in placing a greater emphasis on the role of a DOF.
Instead of hiring a proven DOF who has established scouting connections in markets where BVB have found greater value for their €, we for whatever reason have instead promoted a DOF who's career accomplishments to date include little success to date in player recruitment.
For every Coutinho, Sturridge and Firmino, he's also signed played his part in wasting millions of the club's scarce resources on Alberto, Aspas, Assaidi, Yesil, Moses, Markovic, Lambert, Balotelli, Manquillo , Moreno, Illori, Sakho and Mignolet with the vast majority of them being poor signings.
I'm not denying that our manager has given the go ahead for his appointment, because he clearly has but that doesn't mean that Klopp's opinion is infallible or above questioning. This is the same manager who blamed the wind for a recent loss, whilst also blaming a fixture congestion when he knew well in advance that there was no winter break in England, in failing to prepare for that known eventuality by signing more players.
It's widely known that Edwards is a vocal advocate of FSG's model in aligning himself with FSG's date driven recruitment model.
Hypothetically speaking, if Klopp had turned down the board's preferred candidate in Edwards do you think Klopp's relationship with the board would be effected in turning down the board's preferred candidate ?
Fsg wanted louis van gaal to be dof to rodgers. Rodgers categorically said he did not want one and fsg did not appoint one. Rodgers was a much smaller appointment than rodgers.
This is a klopp approved move.
Kenny and Rodgers were of course sacked for failing, under FSG's model with Klopp being the third manager under their model and vision for football.
The owners are of course going to lay the blame at somebody else's door, because they are not going to publicly come out and acknowledge the failings of their own model with a good example of this being FSG scapegoating Rodgers's assistants following that absolute mess of a recruitment campaign that followed the sale of Luis Suarez. Many of the TC's signings are no longer here, with Alberto, Aspas, Assaidi, Yesil, Moses, Cissokho, Manquillo, Markovic, Lambert, Baloteli, Illori, Bogdan with the likes of Sakho and Moreno also being frozen out of the playing squad.
Klopp earning £8M a year to "develop" players as opposed to signing good players works out a lot cheaper than a manager signing multiple good players on £150K doesn't it ?
If Klopp doesn't succeed here, a supposed world class manager, it's an open and shut case that the model itself is flawed in showing that the recruitment model is a bigger issue than whoever manages us.
Manchester united who are quite possibly the biggest club in the world have ed woodward as CEO. A former accountant!
He worked with the glazers to help them buy man u and has since been given promotion after promotion by the glazers!
He just helped united sign mkhitaryn, ibrhimovic and pogba. What football background did he have before joining man u?
Its insane the levels people are going to bash fsg. I'm not saying fsg are the best thing ever, but this is ridiculous.
The model or whatever you call it gave kenny and brodge the final say. Kenny just said so not long ago which i posted his full interview earlier.
Rodgers and kenny both spent huge amounts, everything we generate goes to transfers and increased wages pretty much. What makes you think this will not be the case for klopp?
Yes we are not a man city, united or chelsea so we cant buy proven elite talent but we are hardly buying league one trash now are we? We have clearly signed talented players, some who have worked out great, some havent. Klopp has destroyed the top 5 teams in his time here so it clearly shows we have talent.
Also firing rodgers assistants made sense as the team was failing and fsg had klopp as the man they wanted to take the club forward. Rodgers started the season decent was only fired as soon as fsg were made aware the klopp would be available. Again, shows fsg were not standing still and always looking to improve. I personally did not want rodgers sacked but when the chance for klopp came, it made sense.
It made sense for the club to wait for klopp rather than hire somebody they did not really want which would again get crucified for on here!
Last edited by PejiVanbasten; 21-3-17 at 10:47.
We've gone with a club legend, we've gone with a young coach, and now we have a "WC manager" in Klopp.
In terms of the credibility of their model I see Klopp as the last roll of the dice, because I can't see what else the club can do aside from improving the calibre of players our managers are working with.
Fans questioning the collective running of the club in assessing FSG's model isn't the problem, because those same fans realise that managers we can't keep scapegoating the managers for a recruitment policy that quite clearly starts at boardroom level.
If you are suggesting that Kenny chose to sign Carroll for £35M on £70K wages when FSG allocated a higher wage spend to sign Sergio Aguero for example for £35M on £150K wages then sure the blame falls on the shoulder's of Kenny. The fact that we have failed to sign players on a combined BIG FEES AND WAGES since FSG's takeover in 2010 does little to convince me that the owner's model is supportive signing established players on higher fee and wages.
How exactly did Rodger's have final say when the manager himself said that he had to pick players from a list complied by the transfer commitee ?
The fact that Tom Werner following the sacking of Rodgers stated that Rodgers was sacked for SOME players that he suggested, key word SOME not ALL does little to support the popular narrative that Rodgers alone was responsible for spending the money. Despite this admission from the club's chairman you consistently play out the narrative that the manager was solely to blame.
Right so sacking Rodger's assistants was the underlying cause of the teams performance when all those committee signings that I have mentioned are no longer here ?
The fact that the Klopp has got rid of Balotelli, Markovic, Alberto this summer who cost the club £40M in fees plus wages shows that the players that TC signed players are not good enough regardless of who manages them let alone the calibre of the assistants in place.
The fact that that Klopp has frozen out Moreno and Sakho who again were commitee signings in costing the club around £28M is another admission that the players signed by the TC are not good enough.
This goes back to my previous point earlier, if Klopp can't overachieve without spending then it's clear that the quality of players that we recruit in accordance to this recruitment model is a bigger issue than the manager.
“There’s only one person that has the final say over what players [we sign] at Liverpool Football Club and that’s Jurgen Klopp right now,” he insisted.
“That’s always been the case for as long as I’ve been here.”
“The point that has been made about the committee, and I don’t think we did anything any different to most football clubs, is that the manager will say we are looking for somebody in this position and a bunch of people – a mix of traditional scouts and more recently analytical and digital-based information – bring all of that together as was always the case,” he said.
“Then we look at two, three, four players, the best players for that position, show them to the manager and the manager can go watch or have the scouts go watch those players and narrow it down.
“At that point I’ll become more involved and start talking to clubs, agents, players on a negotiations basis and then the manager will choose.”
Yes what a terrible model! Its pretty much how most clubs work its just people are upset we have limitations as to what salary we will pay for players and do not generally buy players that are 30ish although we have signed milner on huge wages, lambert for £6m at 33-34yrs of age and klavan and manninger.
Spurs and arsenal both work very similar to us. We are not man u, city or chelsea and that seems to upset people a little too much.
Fact is, we are buying players for a lot of money, paying a lot of money, more than most the league with the approval of the manager. Its then down to the manager to do it.
Clearly for us the players like klavan, mane and karius were players klopp would have chose as he had been watching them himself. Probably same for grujic. He said he had been tracking them. No doubt every manager works with restrictions. Would mane ever have been klopps ultimate first choice at £34m? No. He would have said messi or ronaldo please!
But to suggest we are paying nothing and signing trash is so far from the truth.
Are you going to address the non existence of players that I have mentioned earlier the committees signed under Rodgers that are no longer here because they are not good enough ?
Every club has parameters. We are not on of the elite clubs. Our revenues do not allow it. We have to sign players within our earnings.
Every time a new manager comes in he discards players. Which club does not? Many of the players you mentioned that were already frozen out by rodgers. Sure some players were TC scouted which rodgers had to decide to say yes or no on. Thats his choice. Kenny and rodgers are two very different types of managers so naturally players will be discarded along the way.
Same goes with klopp coming in. He will have a different mindset to what he requires.
We seem to pretend that prior to fsg coming in, our transfers were amazing! The fact is when you are not spending on proven top talent, you are likely to mess up more often. You have to spread the bets. Rafa signed over 90 odd players and most of them were trash too. Signing cheaper players with a bit of potential. Just go through his list!
Are you going to address all the players rafa signed that are no longer here?
But of course we should probably sweep that under the carpet our inability to secure our own targets let alone compete right at the top end of the market because they saved us in giving them a free pass to scrutiny and questioning.
In case you also forget we only spent £35M on Carroll when we sold Torres for £50M, in only "spending big" when we sell "big" in seeing little net investment in isolation to player sales.
And then we as fans have the nerve to scapegoat and bash our best players when they wish to purse their goals elsewhere in wanting to play with a better standard of players.
And how exactly is the club going to grow the revenue to achieve and sustain self sustainable spending power to compete for the very best players with a lack of recent sporting success ?
The top revenue generators in world football have realised commercial success following recent sporting success.
There comes a point where commercial growth from historical brand equity plateus in marketing our name from what we did 30 years ago.
The likes of Chelsea, United, Bayern, Barca, Madrid all sell more shirts globally than we have done since 2011 with all of those clubs have recent sporting success.
The model and line of reasoning that we can only become a top football club if we concentrate on the business side first is inheritley flawed because those big revenue generators have realised commercial growth from recent success. Those top clubs have become a business because of their on pitch success, not because they had world reknowned marketing experts realising unprecedented commercial growth by finishing midtable.
Our model is akin to someone taking over the likes of a Nottingham Forest with the aim of commercialising the club from what happened 30-40 years ago in wanting to catch up to the likes of Manchester United without any recent sporting success.
The likes of Man City and Chelsea have invested heavily in the short term in allowing them to realise the long term gains of their recent sporting success.
Chelsea are already selling more shirts then he globally, and City Footballing Group recently sold a minority stake to a Chinese Media Capital firm in allowing them tap in to that market.
To suggest that we can out grow those clubs commercially without achieving a degree of recent sporting success is operating in a false economy.
Of course Mourinho signed Zouma because he inmediatly included him in to the first team squad as opposed to sending him out on loan. This is the same man who loaned out and sold Lukaku and De Bruyne because he felt they were not ready for first team football, so the suggestion that he was forced to work with players against his will is a false narrative. Mourinho has signed players that he feels are not ready to be thrown in immediately, look at Henrik for example at Manchester United, a player Jose signed but didn't start immediately.
I'm curious as to why you also didn't mention Willian Matic Costa Fabregas high profile players that Mourinho wanted and signed with those core set of players winning him the BPL title, which we have failed to achieve.
So you've gone from Rodgers having final say to now of course Rodgers didn't recommend all the players following our chairmans admission.
How can Rodgers have final say and then sign players that he didn't recommend ?
How does that work exactly ?
Are you talking about the players that Rafa signed in assembling quite possibly our best team in the BPL era without FSG and their transfer commitee with the latter being of key focus to this debate ?
Its really quite simple with rodgers. He looks for players he wanted such as borini and allen. The club also looks for players. Some players rodgers would not have been scouting such as say aspas. But it could be rodgers scouted him, we do not know. The scouts then show rodgers and say do you want him or not. Then its down to rodgers to accept or decline. So it was a player recommended by the TC for rodgers to accept or deny. Quite simple really, dont know why you dont understand that.
Also rafa benitez did make one of our best squads, but we could argue so did the transfer committee when we finished second. What we also should remember that rafa inherited carragher and gerrard. Two world class players who came through the system. Imagine a young carra and gerrard added to this squad now. I would be certain that we would be challenging for the league this season and also possibly last season too.
Rafa also managed in a time where there were only 3 super powers in arsenal, man u and chelsea and with arsenal having their hands tied as they had to fund a new stadium.
Now you have arsenal, man u, city and chelsea who can outspend everyone. You also have spurs who were a nothing club then to now genuine top four challengers. Without a doubt the league was less competitive under rafas time. Im not denying rafas work as i loved rafa and think he was great for us. But swap rafa with klopp now and give rafa the ability to work without a TC and he too would struggle to win the league and possibly even top four.
Also it might help if your read the previous pages to this thread as i have repeated myself hundreds of times now.
Tom werner said :
"We feel there is enough talent on the pitch to win and I would say we certainly have the resources to compete with anybody in football.
Key word, resources. As a club we do have resources to compete. We had just spent incredibly heavily when he said that. We certainly can compete with anyone. We still have a huge name, world class manager and had we got a few things better this year, we would be competing for the title. That does not mean we will outspend everyone and have the best squad. But compete we certainly can. We could easily be a CL team and do well in the CL. It would be no shock for us to do so. We did it under rafa without matching the top teams spending.
In terms or net investment, already been covered here numerous times. Dig it up, it is getting boring.
Talk is cheap - doing matters.... Results on the pitch are the only way to show how much they wanna win and succeed - trophies in the cabinet..............
Til then its just bravado
I think FSG have made a lot of mistakes in their tenure - Henry has even admitted to this in a recent interview. But they are learning. It's true that they have yet to transfer their biz model into trophies yet. Personally, I think they are good but I also think they have some bad points (such as not being anywhere near the club they own and maybe being a little too patient in the search for success).
Having said that, I do think their model is flawed in that it doesn't take into account short to mid term sustainability or success at the club. In buying for the future, it forgets that we have loads of problems right now. I'm happy that we want to buy young and train up - I like that a lot. But it needs to be bolstered with a certain amount of buying in quality and experience. To some extent, they have done that, but the problem is that the quality of the players they have brought in has often not been good enough.
I feel like they just need to be much smarter in their transfers. We need to bolster this squad with quality players with a winning mentality, a strong mentality, with leadership qualities. A sprinkling of those types of players will make all the difference I think.
Chelsea's squad had already had the vast amounts spent on it and was a very complete squad which could sell loan stars like Lukaku and fringe players like Oscar for huge amounts. Our squad was nowhere near as strong or deep so we were selling our best players to finance our spending in many respects.
Over the past 5 seasons we've spent combined NET 18m more than West Ham. We have spent 74m less than Arsenal. We have spent 300m less than United. we have spent 340m less than Manchester City.
The interesting thing is that Chelsea have spent less and achieved more. Perhaps testament to the strength of their squad prior to this period. Net spend doesn't tell the whole story. However I'm not as concerned with these numbers anyway.
The truth is we cannot compete for the top players regardless of what we are prepared to pay. Investing more money into the squad building whilst still being only able to target the same standard of players simply create inflation and you don't get any additional quality and it isn't the sign of ambition.
I'll post a link because unless these figures are wildly inaccurate they don't support your position (not that it is that important for NET spent to increase in our current position)
In the last 5 years (fluctuations so data not perfect) Leicester have net spent 100m (all figures are in Euros btw), Watford 106, Sunderland 132m, West Ham 154m, Chelsea, 163, Liverpool 174m.
Now I've qualified Chelsea being there because their powerhouse squad and massive numbers of loan players meant they needed less investment than us, Arsenal, United or City.
We are closer to the levels of NET spent with West Ham and Sunderland than Arsenal. We are light years away from the money invested in City and United so your argument just doesn't stand up that we can compete with anybody.
I don't think we need to compete with them in NET spend terms. I think United and City shop in a different category of player and increasing how much we spend would probably just increase inflation for valuations. It wouldn't surprise me if Klopp's positive NET spent (or close to positive) was nothing to do with FSG not wanting to spend but in a new era that has arrived sending out a signal that we no longer overpay for players and drive up the price.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|