KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum Secret GM?! Eye opening Artical

this probably the most important Artical about our state recently pleas read carefully:

Most fans will gleefully apply the blaming of 'former regimes' to Tom Hicks and George Gillett, even if targeting them is the equivalent of digging up a two-year-old corpse and giving into another burial.

None of this was the central issue last Friday evening.

There was a breakdown in the chain of command, the manager realising when it was too late that, just because he wanted a player, agreed he was worth the asking price and had enough money to complete a deal, it didn't necessarily mean he would get him.

By any standard of boardroom interference, this was pretty exceptional at Anfield.

Clint Dempsey didn't sign because, for his fee and age, he didn't fit the player profile of FSG even though he did that of the club's manager.

But who now determines that profile, and how can we be sure this will never happen again? Are FSG following the model of Brendan Rodgers or is it still Billy Beane?

Liverpool say Rodgers could have signed Daniel Sturridge for £15m last Friday, but there were sound reasons for the manager not to pursue him. Rodgers wanted the player to prove himself for a season before committing so much money.

Again, it begs the question: who is deciding Sturridge for £15m is more desirable than Dempsey at less than half the price?

And why are FSG so reluctant to identify those who influenced this decision?

We know Henry listens to advisors. With a self-confessed limited knowledge of English football, he clearly isn't conducting this new era of quality control alone, so he has someone doing the vetting on his behalf.

When FSG first revealed they were taking independent advice, it led to a surreal period when individuals as diverse as Johann Cruyff to a blogger employed by Liverpool's official website issued denials that they were the chief consultants.

Whoever they are, they are able to act without fear of being held accountable for their decisions. They told FSG that Joe Allen, Nuri Sahin and Fabio Borini were acceptable purchases but Dempsey was not.

While Rodgers was pursuing the former Fulham striker for two months, there were those at his own club insisting the American was not a Liverpool target.

It was decided long before Carroll left that Dempsey was not worth £6m, so Rodgers was wasting his time last Friday.

The argument about the age of players -- also referred to in Henry's letter -- is also dangerous.

In an alternative reality in which Liverpool are competing for the Champions League and title, are we to believe they wouldn't have pursued 28-year-old Robin Van Persie?

In 2000, when Gerard Houllier signed the player who inspired a cup treble, 35-year-old Gary McAllister, would the deal have been vetoed if FSG been in charge?

In the discussions between manager and owner to prevent a repeat of Friday, Henry may need a crash course in how a blend of youth and experience is the key to success.

Rodgers understands the Anfield economic plan and has already embraced it.

He knows that while Liverpool are outside the Champions League, he can never expect more than a £20m summer budget.

He will look for solutions rather than stir up agitation, and, if anything, he should be assisted by the lowering of short-term expectations.

If he is to succeed, however, the manager must be allowed manage and stand and fall by his own decisions.

If he is unable to do so, the Liverpool job will rapidly become one of the most unworkable in English football.

from the Independent

The press must be loving this, they are lining up to put a boot in as we all know there's nothing they like more than giving us a good kicking.

I just hope BR can galvanise the team and do something special so that we can ram it down their throats at the end of the season!!

It's just a shame we make it do easy for the press.

And this age thing is stupid. We need the right players not just youngsters we can perhaps sell on!

As I've been saying FSG knows [oops] all in football which makes me fear of the worse. Also, in one of yesterday's post there was a debate on sell on value. Sell on value makes sense only if you are a selling club. If you want to win things you look for best current value (over the contract term) for money you pay. With the sell on value that is so dear to FSG, they would never have bought RVP (even if the guy can get them to win the EPL and/or Champions league), never have bought Mc Allister etc. Of course we don't want to be ripped off, but sell on value does not make sense, because with that mentality, if Joe Allen is doing miracles and City comes in wanting to purchase him next year at 20m, we would sell. Arsenal is a clear example of a selling club for instance. Looks like FSG wants the same at LFC as as fans we want much more.

It's not just about sell on value. It's about long term value.

If you buy players coming to the end, you essentially have lost all money.
e.g.
ManU have committed £24 million on RVP
We spent £22 million on Suarez

In four years we would have spent less money as he would still in theory be worth some coin. This money can then be re-spent.

Overall (long term) we would have more money to spend


This is hypothetical but but shows the reasoning.
TEAM A

YEAR 1: You spend £20 million on a 29 year old (4 years = age 33 value £3 million)
YEAR 2: You spend £20 million on a 29 year old (4 years = age 33 value £2 million)
YEAR 3: You spend £20 million on a 29 year old (4 years = age 33 value £4 million)
YEAR 4: You spend £20 million on a 29 year old (4 years = age 33 value £3 million)
YEAR 5: You spend £20 million on a 29 year old (4 years = age 33 value £1 million)

Total spend gross £100 million, team value = £12 million

Alternatively...
TEAM B

YEAR 1: You spend £20 million on a 22 year old (4 years = age 26 value £12 million)
YEAR 2: You spend £20 million on a 22 year old (4 years = age 26 value £20 million)
YEAR 3: You spend £20 million on a 22 year old (4 years = age 26 value £6 million)
YEAR 4: You spend £20 million on a 22 year old (4 years = age 26 value £24 million)
YEAR 5: You spend £20 million on a 22 year old (4 years = age 26 value £8 million)

Total spend gross £100 million, team value £70 million


Obviously this is all hypothetical but overall team A has cost £88 million while, team B has cost £30 million and is in a far better situation. In theory, in the long term team B can strengthen the squad by adding players worth an additional £58 million.

Sustained growth over a period of time, rather than short term gains.

By FSG having a 'preferred profile' for players and not sanctioning the Dempsey deal, they are essentially circum-navigating the absence of a 'director of football'. BR can't be happy with FSG.....BUT.....all the same, he's very fortunate to be where he is today.

Incidentally, all this talk of a 'possible' recall for andy carroll suggests that west ham never even paid us a loan fee!!

so we accept a manager who is very fortunate and should just get on with it..by FSG's own admission they haven't a clue about football so why are they deciding what kinda profile a player should have..its insane. they are just making a balls of things and making sure they do so as cheaply as possible. when they first took over they stated the goal of the club was to buy young and sell high..alarm bells should have rang there and then but everyone was just happy to get shot of Hicks.

Ok fair enough, but with the 29 year old you have a higher chance of buying quality you know instead of taking a risk with a younger player + the older player comes with the experience you need to pay for.

What you are saying is that it's better to buy younger players because even if you don't sell them they would last longer. However,I think that the risk is higher (injuries, not being the player that was expected etc) and you are basically trying to buy future success. It can be future forever (Arsenal) and in the mean time for a club like LFC you also run the risk of not re-generating your fan base (mainly abroad as in England fans will always support the teams of their City) .

I'll give you an example, if you look at the % increase in Chelsea fans compared to LFC over the last 10 years, I bet the % growth for Chelsea will be huge compared to LFC. You go to countries in Africa you will notice that quickly. 10 years ago nobody had the Chealsea shirt while now it's more present in shops than LFC. Real Madrid paid a fortune to buy Becks / Ronaldo, the investment was recouped at a glance through shirt sales worldwide. Becks didn't even have a good re-sale value. Ok I appreciate that there is only 1 Real Madrid.

The difference between the 2 approaches are, either you invest now in players to win things and increase your merchandising / champions league money etc to increase your revenue or you spend lower sums in younger players and be more cautious but also postpone success and make lower profits. But to invest you need to have the money and good understanding of the football business and LFC. Don't think FSG has got all that IMHO

Or you buy your way into the champions league, get knocked out early, not be able to afford new signing and be forced to sell the best players.

I'd rather be an Arsenal than a Leeds.

Thats business thought isn't it? risk and return. There is no road map or we would all be rich. Arsenal took a big gamble when they built the new stadia one that paid off. But it could have gone the other way.