Why FSG’s transfer committee have failed to get more bang for their buck - by Joe Simpson

[tlw content]

When Liverpool were purchased by Fenway Sports Group (or as they were then New England Sports ventures) we were continuously told by them and numerous respected judges that their intention was 'to do things smarter'.  A key part of this was their drive to ensure that Liverpool – who whilst relatively wealthy were not bankrolled by a billionaire with money to burn - had a coherent transfer strategy that strives for maximum value in the transfer market. 

 

John Henry himself said we will “buy prudently and cleverly and never again waste resources on inflated transfer fees and unrealistic wages. We have no fear of spending and competing with the very best but we will not overpay for players.” It was this eminently sensible desire for value that initially led them to employ Damien Comolli and ultimately underpinned their creation of a transfer committee.  

 

Where has this desire for a coherent transfer strategy and striving to secure what John Henry called “maximum value for what is spent so that we can build quality and depth" got Liverpool? It has taken them after 4 years and hundreds of millions of pounds spent to a position where it appears that an injury to one player can at best significantly damage our hopes and at worst torpedo our entire season. 

 

How can this be when we have Brendan Rodgers – in my opinion an excellent young coach – and a transfer committee made up of some of the most respected football analysts in the country? For me the answer is simple: FSG have not shown the courage in their own convictions.  

 

I believe that they had the right idea in wanting to have a transfer committee as in an era when bad buys on big money can set a club back years it is foolish to put that responsibility completely in any one man’s hands.  However whilst they had the right idea they undermined it by failing to implement it correctly.  

 

* Warning the rest of this article will contain speculation (hopefully educated speculation but speculation all the same). 

 

The best transfer committees (such as Bayern Munich’s for example) will only sign a player if every member of the committee – including the manager – is in complete agreement on the player and the valuation of the player.  Whilst this system by its very nature can initially be slow moving – perhaps missing out if a player comes available at short notice for example - and at times it will mean missing out on

players through failure to pay above the committee’s agreed valuation it does have the massive benefit of increasing the likelihood that the players signed are of the necessary quality – and in the correct value range - as it is unlikely that all would get their judgment of the same player significantly wrong. 

 

In contrast to this system we appear to have implemented a strategy that sees some players signed by the committee, some by the manager and some by a combination of the two. 

 

There are a couple of major potential problems with our approach:

 

Some players will suit the committee but not the manager. (Comolli said that when this happens you may as well throw the money in the bin as the player won’t get used or won’t get used properly).  Sakho is a prime example of this as a French international centre half with a reputation as a natural leader yet the manager clearly doesn’t rate him as a player or a leader and as such rarely plays him and sought to replace him with a similarly expensive player at the first opportunity (creating an imbalance in the squad make up). 

 

Another significant example of this occurring is with the signing of Mignolet who may have been deemed a good keeper by the committee but clearly is a million miles away from the profile of keeper that Rodgers has always advocated.  So when players suit the committee but not the manager you run the risk of the player being signed and becoming a wasted asset that is hardly used and depreciates both in value to the team and economically or a player who does get utilized but underperforms as he is ill suited to the manager’s style of play.   

 

On the other hand some players will suit the manager but not the committee.   If the manager’s judgment is off you can be left with a player who whilst initially to the manager’s approval may not be up to the standard that the club need to succeed. Borini is perhaps a good example of this with Rodgers lavishing praise on him in the build up to his signing yet from the moment he signed it has become increasingly clear to everyone (including Rodgers ultimately) that he isn’t Liverpool quality (I know the committee wasn’t technically in place when he was signed but Fallows and Hunter were on gardening leave from City and Michael Edwards was already there - and I would be extremely shocked if FSG didn’t run their potential signings past them prior to moving forward with these purchases). 

 

Lovren looks like another classic example of this with the manager clearly a massive fan of his – and for all we know the committee may rate him too – but I would be extremely shocked if they valued him anywhere as highly as Rodgers.  So if the manager gets it wrong – as all managers do – you can end up with players who not only aren’t good enough but who may be significantly overpriced.  Now of course an efficient transfer committee with the manager fully integrated into it and completely on-board with it could still make mistakes like this but the checks and balances should ensure that the likelihood of them occurring are significantly reduced.

 

Of course sometimes a quasi-transfer committee, quasi-manager led transfer policy like ours can work – like for example in the signings of Sturridge and Coutinho where apparently Rodgers had doubts but acquiesced and agreed to their signings - and this piece isn’t to say that it is doomed to failure as I don’t think it necessarily is but it definitely isn’t the type of smart “prudent” approach that FSG advocated. 

 

Now of course every club’s transfer system will be flawed in some way and they will all have their own individual strengths and weaknesses but our set up was created in the hope of being more efficient, to maximize strengths and reduce weaknesses. The reality is that FSG have created a committee system that in its present guise has all of a transfer committee’s weaknesses and none of its strengths.  Our transfer committee hasn’t reduced transfer mistakes or ensured we get greater value in the transfer market and in fact if anything the opposite has occurred. 

 

For me FSG had the right idea in terms of wanting to create a transfer committee they just failed to ensure that it was properly implemented.

 

 

Joe Simpson

@Wolf_TicketsLFC

 

Click here to view the article

[dennis tooth]

How about just put a manager in there with the nous to sign good even great players ala Benitez. Ever since we stopped doing this we have sign shitter and shitter players for more and more money.

 

If Rodgers signed Lovren sack the cunt and sack the pointless committee and employ one manager with a scouting team below and get on with it.

 

The committee has proven you cant get rid of waste, even by having a lot of chefs doesnt make a good broth. Give on chef the job and let him determine what ingredients he needs.

 

The committee is a total clusterfuck.

[dennis tooth]

How about just put a manager in there with the nous to sign good even great players ala Benitez. Ever since we stopped doing this we have sign shitter and shitter players for more and more money.

 

If Rodgers signed Lovren sack the cunt and sack the pointless committee and employ one manager with a scouting team below and get on with it.

 

The committee has proven you cant get rid of waste, even by having a lot of chefs doesnt make a good broth. Give on chef the job and let him determine what ingredients he needs.

 

The committee is a total clusterfuck.

[dennis tooth]

Right I have a problem with this paragraph, I have highlighted the important bit for your attention, perhaps its a typo??

How can this be when we have Brendan Rodgers – in my opinion an excellent young coach – and a transfer committee made up of some of the most respected football analysts in the country? For me the answer is simple: FSG have not shown the courage in their own convictions.  

 

[Section_31]

The situation is now so serious that not one, but two Dennis Tooth posts are required to deal with it.

[Guest davelfc]

The situation is now so serious that not one, but two Dennis Tooth posts are required to deal with it.

Three and we move up a defcon level.

[scudger99]

He's got a bee in is bonnet alright.

[Neil G]

A transfer committee should be an advisory body, not a decision-making body.

 

The manager should never have players imposed on him that he doesn't want, nor should he have someone else veto a player he wants to sign, save for exceptional circumstances when he's clearly paying way over the odds out of desperation (Andy Carroll). And even that shouldn't be necessary if we do our business early and don't sell key players late in the window without having adequate replacements lined up.

[Dr. J]

A transfer committee is like any other committee in an organization. Taking into account the inevitable power struggles, infighting and general cuntishness that informs the human race, it exists to have checks and balances. Not having one, having all decision making in the hands of one person, the manager in this case, is like the difference between being married with children and being a priest. In the first case, you have people who question your decisions and your authority; in the second, you don't.

 

There's nothing wrong with the idea. I've seen ones that worked and ones that didn't, but proper function is down to the highest level of management. It's their job to match and balance the elements of the committee and sack the members who are the problem.

[Neil G]

A transfer committee is like any other committee in an organization. Taking into account the inevitable power struggles, infighting and general cuntishness that informs the human race, it exists to have checks and balances. Not having one, having all decision making in the hands of one person, the manager in this case, is like the difference between being married with children and being a priest. In the first case, you have people who question your decisions and your authority; in the second, you don't.

 

There's nothing wrong with the idea. I've seen ones that worked and ones that didn't, but proper function is down to the highest level of management. It's their job to match and balance the elements of the committee and sack the members who are the problem.

You can still have people voicing their opinions and openly questioning and disagreeing with the manager's decisions while giving the manager final say. The accountability element still exists with the possibility of the manager being sacked for not doing his job well enough, which includes signing players.

[ratcatcher]

The big problem is we dont know how the transfer committee works even in conjunction with rodgers. So anything we write is pure speculation.

 

No system or manager is perfect. Im sure Bayern have signed some duds in their time. Even top managers make mistakes. Or is it some players just cant make the transition to the pressure at bigger clubs for one reason or another?

 

On top of that, everyone has different opinions and point of view. Having seen Toure and Sakho in action, Im not convinced by either of them. They've both made costly gaffs while one looks like bambi on ice.

 

Have we been unlucky or is it just continuing incompetence? Who knows, I suspect the truth is somewhere in between.

 

FSG have spent 'big' in the transfer market. Maybe not big in terms of an individual (although £20m - £25m for some individuals is far more than most clubs in the PL do) but in terms of moving the cash.

 

People can argue about net spend and the suarez money but, if as some continue to suggest that FSG are 'looking to sell' anytime soon, they could just have trousered the money instead.

 

Its massively disappointing to be back where we are, I said not long ago that we are back to when rodgers came in at best. If only there was a quick fix.

[Section_31]

I can't believe money comes into our decision making process, not looking at some of the sums we spunk on very high risk players.

[Dr. J]

You can still have people voicing their opinions and openly questioning and disagreeing with the manager's decisions while giving the manager final say. The accountability element still exists with the possibility of the manager being sacked for not doing his job well enough, which includes signing players.

 

Absolutely. A lot of mistrust and hostility that has built up could be removed by simply giving the operational rules for the committee. Simple majority, unanimity, etc.

 

Most of the problems we as supporters have is due to the lack of even basic transparency.

[Trumo]

FSG do need to ask themselves if their strategy and recruitment model is conducive to building a CONSISTENTLY strong team capable of challenging for domestic, and in the case of Liverpool, European honours. Basic investment on punts on a regular basis together with a spike in investment every few years - partially created by letting top players leave - isn't the right way to go about achieving this consistency. I'm not suggesting trying to match the spending power of Spain's big two or the oil-backed clubs, but I am talking about creating the means with which to attract the level of talent and experience that will see us become consistent enough to regularly compete at the top end. Jules may beg to differ or choose to bring in other factors that I'm not aware of in terms of the details, but FSG have struggled to get consistency out of the Red Sox for years now, and that is off the back of a similar strategy to the one being implemented at Liverpool.

 

I'd hate to even imply that the club of the plastic flag-waving racist mongs owned by a demented clapping seal with billions in oil wealth are in any way the model for us to follow, but one aspect where they're light years ahead of us is in pushing a professional winning mentality. We've had too many people trying to wing it and dulling the drive of the few that have it. A transfer strategy too geared towards taking a punt and hoping for the best is not going to help in creating a consistent desire to win things. You don't have be be cynical or profligate to demonstrate that you'll go the extra lengths. but rather an understanding that you are really prepared to push for a consistently high level.

[Neil G]

Absolutely. A lot of mistrust and hostility that has built up could be removed by simply giving the operational rules for the committee. Simple majority, unanimity, etc.

 

Most of the problems we as supporters have is due to the lack of even basic transparency.

That wouldn't solve anything, if the system isn't fit for purpose then there's nothing to be gained by exposing it.

 

I was actually disagreeing with you in this post. In your previous post you said that a setup where all the decision making is done by one man isn't desirable. I think it is, as long as the decisions are informed by feedback from others.

[Dr. J]

That wouldn't solve anything, if the system isn't fit for purpose then there's nothing to be gained by exposing it.

 

I was actually disagreeing with you in this post. In your previous post you said that a setup where all the decision making is done by one man isn't desirable. I think it is, as long as the decisions are informed by feedback from others.

 

I've never participated in an organization run like that, but I've sat on my share of committees. You may be right, but in the context of football I doubt that an owner would place so much independent authority in the hands of one person when the sums involved are so enourmous.

 

If, say, one person on the committee has the right to veto the collective position, that person has 100% of the power. If that is distributed equally, i.e. if each person has that right then you have a situation where a consensus is not only possible but essential. Rodgers has said that he had final say on all transfers, I believe. If so, then it seems the committee is structured to give veto power only to him. In which case, that would be functionally equivalent to what you suggest.

 

As for disclosing the structure, I can't see how it would hurt, really.

[Boss]

Football management is a very simple affair, it boils down to two things -

 

1. Don't sell your best players

2. Buy better players than the one's you already have

 

Rodger's and the committee failed on both counts this summer, that's why we're in this mess.

[Ranxerox]

 

 

John Henry himself said we will “buy prudently and cleverly and never again waste resources on inflated transfer fees and unrealistic wages. We have no fear of spending and competing with the very best but we will not overpay for players.” It was this eminently sensible desire for value that initially led them to employ Damien Comolli and ultimately underpinned their creation of a transfer committee.  

 

 

 

To me the problem is the basic premise of the committee. As highlighted above (if an accurate representation of what the committee is in FSG's mind) the whole idea is an exercise in asset acquisition. So obviously plucked from their familiar world of hedge fund managers. However football players are not companies. Its near impossible to achieve the above and it would tend to drive one to avoid large purchases (especially ones that brought high long term servicing costs ie wages). It also seems to be less about building a team designed to win and more about ensuring the assets have "value". That term has become an end in itself it seems. They're not really building a winning team, they're building a roster of "value" players (and doing even that poorly it seems).

 

They need to stop applying hedge fund thinking to the running of a football club (that is if  they're serious about winning). 

[ritchie]

You've got to have accountability. You've probably got Rodgers briefing people trying to pass the buck and save his own skin. You've probably got others on the committee blaming Rodgers for not utilising signings properly and making them look worse. In reality the manager is using his squad appallingly and the committee should have identified better players (not that Ayre could get the deals done anyway or Rodgers could sell the club to the better players). 

 

The whole thing doesn't work but i'd hate to to be a scout for Brendan Rodgers because he can't organise a defence and he can't set a team up defensively. Sakho looks great for France and Skrtel for Slovakia and has had really good season under Rafa and Kenny here. Neville and Carragher say Lovren was one of the best centre backs in the league last year. Moreno was a sought after player and cost a lot of money for a full back. Even Johnson has a high pedigree. These are not bad footballers, so why aren't they being coached properly?

 

Rodgers' main answer seems to be "well I wanted Ashley Williams". Ashley Williams in our team would be hopeless. He's a 30 year old journeyman.  Sakho, Skrtel or Lovren would probably look great for Swansea or Southampton (i.e. Lovren last season) but are no good here. If you're a scout Rodgers is going to make a cunt out of you signing any defensive player or generally a midfielder or wide player.

 

The one thing going for Rodgers is he's shown he can coach attacking players well IF he's got a week on the training ground between games to work with them (and if they're top players i.e. SASAS). In reality you don't get thatt at top clubs. Liverpool not being in Europe last season was (or certainly fucking should be) a one off. And that was because he couldn't quality for Europe with us in his first season while we were in the Europa.

[dennis tooth]

Even Mourinho struggled when Roman was buying Shevchenkos and Torress behind his back. Balotelli to me is one of them signings, no football man would sign this woppa to lead them up front, total style over substance. Shanks, Bob none of them would allow for it.

Ferguson of the scummers united would not have accepted it and theres something in any top manager worth his salt, would not put up with it becuase they would not be a top manager if they did.

 

Otherwise whats the fucking point, if your success of failure is nine tenths out of your own control.

[dennis tooth]

To me the problem is the basic premise of the committee. As highlighted above (if an accurate representation of what the committee is in FSG's mind) the whole idea is an exercise in asset acquisition. So obviously plucked from their familiar world of hedge fund managers. However football players are not companies. Its near impossible to achieve the above and it would tend to drive one to avoid large purchases (especially ones that brought high long term servicing costs ie wages). It also seems to be less about building a team designed to win and more about ensuring the assets have "value". That term has become an end in itself it seems. They're not really building a winning team, they're building a roster of "value" players (and doing even that poorly it seems).

 

They need to stop applying hedge fund thinking to the running of a football club (that is if  they're serious about winning). 

 

This, cos the ironic thing is its costing a lot more value heamorraging than the previous policy.

[ritchie]

Even Mourinho struggled when Roman was buying Shevchenkos and Torress behind his back. Balotelli to me is one of them signings, no football man would sign this woppa to lead them up front, total style over substance. Shanks, Bob none of them would allow for it.

Ferguson of the scummers united would not have accepted it and theres something in any top manager worth his salt, would not put up with it becuase they would not be a top manager if they did.

 

Otherwise whats the fucking point, if your success of failure is nine tenths out of your own control.

 

If Rodgers said no he wouldn't have signed. He's agreed to it, or he's a bare faced liar. If he was offered Andy Carroll back for 16 million he wouldn't have agreed to that. So why Balotelli?

 

Whoever suggested Balotelli though should be out of a job with any compensation claim dragged through the courts. But because it's 'by committee' they can all hide behind each other. 

[Neil G]

I've never participated in an organization run like that, but I've sat on my share of committees. You may be right, but in the context of football I doubt that an owner would place so much independent authority in the hands of one person when the sums involved are so enourmous.

 

If, say, one person on the committee has the right to veto the collective position, that person has 100% of the power. If that is distributed equally, i.e. if each person has that right then you have a situation where a consensus is not only possible but essential. Rodgers has said that he had final say on all transfers, I believe. If so, then it seems the committee is structured to give veto power only to him. In which case, that would be functionally equivalent to what you suggest.

The requirement for consensus would be fine if all the members were equally accountable, but they're not. The manager is the one whose head is on the block if signings don't work out.

 

I wouldn't attach too much weight to Rodgers's comments. If he doesn't have final say and can be overruled, he's unlikely to advertise the fact.

[dennis tooth]

If Rodgers said no he wouldn't have signed. He's agreed to it, or he's a bare faced liar. 

 

Whoever suggested Balotelli though should be out of a job with any compensation claim dragged through the courts. But because it's 'by committee' they can all hide behind each other. 

Hes backed himself but he did really want the job and was super cheap. I want to know the ins and outs of who signed who before I condemn Rodgers totally. That said if all he has to do is coach you should think he can set us up to keep the occasional clean sheet.

 

Lets say we sack Rodgers, the sad thing is we will probably appoint a worse manager anyway since no manager will accept this shit system and have their career trashed by Mike Gordon or whoever.

 

 

As an aside I think we can see whats going on with anytime we have tried to sign a top player with the committee:

Any player who is about to sign will get approached by people like Mike Gordon and wonder who the fuck this hedge fund window licker money spinner is and who the fuck is signing players and if they sign does the manager even want them or is Mike feeling lucky today?

Hence any decent player who is going anywhere wont sign for us and run a mile, cant be a co incidence we lose out on all these players.

 

Mike Gordon, destroyer of promising young managers and young players careers and possibly a promising club.

[ritchie]

The requirement for consensus would be fine if all the members were equally accountable, but they're not. The manager is the one whose head is on the block if signings don't work out.

 

I wouldn't attach too much weight to Rodgers's comments. If he doesn't have final say and can be overruled, he's unlikely to advertise the fact.

 

But he's okay to advertise the fact to anyone who'll listen that he absolutely does have final say. Why say anything?

 

He might be spinning a different story to selected journos off the record now this season's gone to shit, but it was Rodgers who couldn't keep his mouth shut in the summer about how happy he was with the players we'd got in and how they were his decisions. If he can't be honest with the fans then the fans can only take what he says at face value, he's not even cryptic about it. 

 

I think we can probable gather that he wanted Vorm, Williams, Bertrand, Dempsey, Sigurdson and Ince rather than some of the players we did sign. There's none of them you wish we'd have got. The committee have got a lot to answer for, collectively, but if the scouts have identified Willian, Costa, Mikhitaryan and Sanchez and the club can't sell it to those players then they are restricted a bit. If Rodgers and his no mark staff can't organise a defence then you're going to look bad as well whatever defender you earmark. It was also mooted that the committee came into being in the first place because FSG were so underwhelmed with Rodgers' signings and wish lift in his first summer window.