The Football Committee

[sir roger]

Lengthy article in the Telegraph ( apologies I am not able to link it here - could somebody do the honours ) fleshing out the fact that we are to be run in a football sense by committee & hints that as well as Rodgers & the Man City scouts etc. there will be some people involved who are at other clubs at present.

 

Interesting concept, but I have been on lots of committees in my time & tend to agree with the old joke that a camel is a horse designed by a committee.

 

Also worry that it is a fudge to avoid one strong football-facing person as DoF or Chief Exec. & FSG having a Liverpool-based presence.

[Anubis]

Rodgers said this was how he operated in an interview just after his appointment. Four or five people discussing a transfer with him having the final say. The only reason it hasn't been implemented so far is because the Man City lads are on gardening leave. That article makes out it's a response to deadline day, but the reality is this was always the plan from the beginning.

[Guest San Don]

Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers to receive help from 'technical committee’ - Telegraph

 

The committee will advise manager Brendan Rodgers but will also, interestingly, take on a much wider role as to how Liverpool is run, the type of football the club will play and all the 'technical’ aspects that are sometimes taken by a director

 

of football.

 

Although Rodgers, as part of his negotiations to take over at Anfield, insisted he would not work directly for a director of football, despite Liverpool sounding out several candidates, including former Dutch coach Louis van Gaal, the club has

 

not ruled out eventually making the appointment.

 

However, the likelihood is that it will soon reveal the identity of a number of people who will

 

form a committee of advisers, some of whom are already acting as sounding-boards, for Liverpool’s owners John W Henry and Tom Werner.

 

The Americans are fully committed to adopting a “European-style model” of running the club and do not want to follow the typical British approach of a manager having top-to-bottom control of the club believing it is unsustainable and costly. The owners admire the approach taken by West Bromwich Albion. The club’s sporting and technical director Dan Ashworth, who is now wanted by the Football Association, was linked to a move to Liverpool in the summer.

 

Liverpool also point out that the wealthiest club in the Premier League, Manchester City, do not allow manager Roberto Mancini full control of transfers with

 

Brian Marwood, the football administrator, playing a key role on behalf of the owners.

 

Liverpool’s owners will be careful not to cause tension with Rodgers who has made it clear that he will not tolerate interference in first-team matters although, crucially, the manager will be expected to discuss his targets with the technical committee who may also make their own recommendations

 

on which players are pursued. Such an approach may set alarm bells ringing, given the inherent possibility that the manager

 

might feel interference which could lead to conflict.

 

There were clear problems last week when Rodgers’ attempts to sign Clint Dempsey from Fulham were vetoed because Liverpool’s owners did not believe the deal – the American was valued at

 

£6m – was value for money for a 29-year-old with only one year left on his contract. Although Liverpool insist they offered more than the £3m that Fulham sources have indicated was bid, they did not match the asking price and Dempsey eventually left for Tottenham Hotspur instead.

 

Liverpool had also proposed a swap deal with Jordan Henderson moving to Craven Cottage in return for Dempsey and although Fulham were interested, the

 

22-year-old England midfielder, who was signed for £16m last summer in a spending spree which Liverpool are still paying a heavy price for, did not agree to the deal and it collapsed.

 

The failure to agree a deal for Chelsea’s Daniel Sturridge – Liverpool and Rodgers only wanted to loan the striker while Chelsea wanted a permanent transfer – meant that with Carroll going to West Ham United on

 

loan on the Thursday night, Rodgers was left with just two senior strikers and one of those

 

is 21-year-old Fabio Borini who

 

is yet to score a goal in the Premier League.

 

There was also some discussion as to whether Liverpool could sign the Brazilian striker Leandro Damiao from Internacional but they could not reach an agreement and ran out of time for that deal.

 

Rodgers has already expressed his annoyance to the Liverpool hierarchy and spoke of how “operational issues” had to improve and is now casting around the 'free agent’ market to see if he can sign an emergency replacement until the January transfer window opens.

 

Liverpool will be able to recall Carroll then but do not want to do so with Rodgers having made it evident that the £35m striker, who is out for six weeks with a hamstring tear suffered on his West Ham debut, does not figure in his plans.

 

There is irritation at Liverpool that so much attention - and criticism - has focused on their failure to replace Carroll with the club insisting that disagreements over the valuation of a player between executives and a manager - such as happened with Dempsey - are commonplace.

 

The focus on Liverpool’s failure to sign a striker fell on the club’s managing director Ian Ayre whose role has been under scrutiny for some time. There have been suggestions that Liverpool’s owners were considering returning Ayre to his former post of commercial director, where he successfully revamped the club’s activities, and bring in a more high-powered chief executive.

 

Although the rumours, from informed sources, persist that Ayre will be replaced - he also came under scrutiny during

 

the summer when the owners sacked manager Kenny Dalglish and director of football Damien Comolli – Liverpool insist

 

there are no plans for a change

 

to be made.

 

However, the club have confirmed that the technical committee is close to being formed with, intriguingly, some of its members already in place and others working their notice. At least one prospective member is thought to work for another club.

 

Liverpool, at present, are keeping the identities a closely guarded secret amid suggestions – again denied – that Henry has used the likes of former Barcelona coach Johan Cruyff to canvas opinion.

 

The expected structure is along the lines of proposals divulged when Rodgers was appointed in the summer by Ayre. Then he said that Liverpool were still keen to develop along the “more continental director of football-type structure, a collaborative group working around the football area”.

 

A key component will be the appointed of a chief scout, with more responsibility than that

 

role usually suggests, and an experienced football administrator who can negotiate transfers

 

and contracts.

 

Interestingly there will also be a senior figure – likely to be a former player or manager although not one necessarily previously connected with Liverpool – who will act as a figurehead for the type of

 

football Liverpool want to play and the philosophy the club want to follow.

 

The appointments will be closely scrutinised by Liverpool supporters who remain angry over the summer transfer dealings especially as the team have made an indifferent start to the season and do not appear fully equipped to compete for a Champions League place.

[Guest San Don]

Rodgers said this was how he operated in an interview just after his appointment. Four or five people discussing a transfer with him having the final say. The only reason it hasn't been implemented so far is because the Man City lads are on gardening leave. That article makes out it's a response to deadline day, but the reality is this was always the plan from the beginning.

 

I agree he mentioned something like this on his appointment but I disagree its anything to do with the ex city scouts. Ths is about signings not scouting players.

 

I still think its a load of shite. From a footballing perspective, the manager should always have the final say on who he wants to sign but I also accept, the club from a financial side, says yes or no depending on the size of fee.

 

The added complication is that the finance side of this is always the 'boss' on agreeing transfers. But the difference comes when the club says no to the transfer for financial reasons that are simply 'we dont think the player is worth that.'

[Tommy Lawrence]

I wonder if this means that we'll finally discover who the shadowy "advisers" that FSG have been using actually are?

[Geraghty]

I reckon this way will finally stop us from signing shite players for huge amounts like Aquilani Downing and Carroll.

 

Still shite but them sort of deals have put us back decades.

[Trumo]

At pretty much every club, the manager (or coach) will discuss with his assistants, directors and scouts a number of targets based on what it is felt the squad needs. This is nothing new, even for Liverpool.

 

The difference here is that FSG's running of the club is under the spotlight due to recent events, and simply because we are Liverpool FC. Everything that is said by the club is scrutinised by so many people all coming to different conclusions. The worst of those conclusions usually come from the loudest voices and this is how so many myths become fact.

[Rafiagra]

Let's hope none of them start pulling in different directions. That would be complicated.

[Guest San Don]

At pretty much every club, the manager (or coach) will discuss with his assistants, directors and scouts a number of targets based on what it is felt the squad needs. This is nothing new, even for Liverpool.

 

The difference here is that FSG's running of the club is under the spotlight due to recent events, and simply because we are Liverpool FC. Everything that is said by the club is scrutinised by so many people all coming to different conclusions. The worst of those conclusions usually come from the loudest voices and this is how so many myths become fact.

 

If people think this is the model being proposed (no different to before and everyone does it) they are wrong. This committee wont be about identifying targets. That will be done by the ex city scouts coming in.

 

This committee will be about determining the worth of the player to the team and perhaps more importantly, the transfer value.

 

I think that is a dangerous precedent. Yes, clubs even ourselves, have had the final say on making the funds available to buy players ie have we got enough money in the bank account \ other sources to finance the deal?

 

Its never before been 'is this player worth the money and, will he have a sell on value in 3 or 4 years time, yes \ no? If no, we arent signing him no matter what the manager wants.''

[Gym Beglin]

There will be a group of people, I wouldn't go as far to say it will be a committee. After all, it's only the manager who can pick the team, his opinion is final, so it's not a committee, there will be no majority voting.

 

Rodgers liks to talk, and that's a good thing, he'll pick their brains about their opinions and he just wants a group of people on speed dial who's opinions he values.

 

The DoF thing was always going tobe too political, having someone with as much sway with the owners as he does, and after all, who would declare a winner if a DoF and arodgers disagreed on something?

[Guest San Don]

There will be a group of people, I wouldn't go as far to say it will be a committee. After all, it's only the manager who can pick the team, his opinion is final, so it's not a committee, there will be no majority voting.

 

Rodgers liks to talk, and that's a good thing, he'll pick their brains about their opinions and he just wants a group of people on speed dial who's opinions he values.

 

The DoF thing was always going tobe too political, having someone with as much sway with the owners as he does, and after all, who would declare a winner if a DoF and arodgers disagreed on something?

 

So if its a talking shop, why the need whatever its called?

[Trumo]

This committee will be about determining the worth of the player to the team and perhaps more importantly, the transfer value.

 

I think that is a dangerous precedent. Yes, clubs even ourselves, have had the final say on making the funds available to buy players ie have we got enough money in the bank account \ other sources to finance the deal?

 

Its never before been 'is this player worth the money and, will he have a sell on value in 3 or 4 years time, yes \ no? If no, we arent signing him no matter what the manager wants.''

 

All of which validates my earlier point. There is so much opinion formed about this club and its working based on reports that are themselves not much more than mere speculation. In this instance, the story is based around a comment in an open letter written by FSG/Henry where they talk about not overpaying for older players. Because they apparently scuppered a deal for Clint Dempsey, that surely means their modus operandi is set in stone.

 

Of course I'm not stupid enough to think there might not be any truth in the story, but I also don't ever fall into the trap that so many fans do, where they never question the validity or accuracy of media reports by certain journalists "because that guy is never wrong" or "he's got no reason to lie to me" and all the usual bullshit reasons people use to justify themselves and their opinions.

 

As for 'talking shop', this sounds to me more like a modern take on the old 'Boot Room' philosophy, minus the cosy little chats with opposition managers of course. If there is much truth in the nation of a committee that involves a lot of technical analysis in decision making, I would also hope that people with a keen eye and a talent for spotting good players are also heavily involved, because the analysis and stats stuff should be used to verify what has also been deduced by the talent spotters. That is how it can be effective.

[Guest San Don]

All of which validates my earlier point. There is so much opinion formed about this club and its working based on reports that are themselves not much more than mere speculation. In this instance, the story is based around a comment in an open letter written by FSG/Henry where they talk about not overpaying for older players. Because they apparently scuppered a deal for Clint Dempsey, that surely means their modus operandi is set in stone.

 

Well, naturally a club of Liverpool's size will arouse interest and comment from lots of people. But, I dont go along with comments or thoughts that everything in reports are true. Neither is the opposite that they are all incorrect valid either.

 

Fact of this matter is the owners 'did' scupper the dempsey deal. There is not 'apparently' about it.

 

Does that mean their MO is set in stone? No, but neither does it mean that its going to be a scatter gun approach either. If the owners position on transfers is player value and resale value, then, clearly, they will have a larger say, either via this committe or directly, of a say in who the manager is allowed to sign or not sign.

 

Of course I'm not stupid enough to think there might not be any truth in the story, but I also don't ever fall into the trap that so many fans do, where they never question the validity or accuracy of media reports by certain journalists "because that guy is never wrong" or "he's got no reason to lie to me" and all the usual bullshit reasons people use to justify themselves and their opinions.

 

As for 'talking shop', this sounds to me more like a modern take on the old 'Boot Room' philosophy, minus the cosy little chats with opposition managers of course. If there is much truth in the nation of a committee that involves a lot of technical analysis in decision making, I would also hope that people with a keen eye and a talent for spotting good players are also heavily involved, because the analysis and stats stuff should be used to verify what has also been deduced by the talent spotters. That is how it can be effective.

 

I cant agree with any analogue to the old bootroom here. The two are just not remotely alike. You're suggesting this committe is more akin to identifying potential targets. If that's the case, why recruit 3 of city's top scouts?

[Il Fenomeno]

Rodgers said this was how he operated in an interview just after his appointment. Four or five people discussing a transfer with him having the final say. The only reason it hasn't been implemented so far is because the Man City lads are on gardening leave. That article makes out it's a response to deadline day, but the reality is this was always the plan from the beginning.

 

What's the point having a transfer committee if Rodgers is going to get the last say?

 

Surely its just a waste of money hiring 4 or 5 people if Rodgers is just going to go ahead and sign the players he wants anyway. I don't think its going to work like that at all, and its more likely that "the committee" will be given the final say on whether we'll be signing X player.

[coop]

This way of a committee has really affected Barcelona and Man City.

[Gym Beglin]

So if its a talking shop, why the need whatever its called?

 

Because knowledge is power, I suppose.

 

Brendan has, say, 20 close contacts he can speak to about the pro's of signing a player (attitude, home life, social life), and if he gets six other well-connected people around a table then each one of them also has 20 contacts, then that's a great database when it comes to discussing the merits and aptitude of his targets.

 

One of them could know something vital about a player that we may otherwise have missed, like we didn't know Henderson and Downing were cowardly shithouses, for example, or Adam had questionable refuelling habits.

 

Buying a player will always come with risk, but this group is designed to eliminate as many risks from buying a player as its possible to have. You can already tell Rodgers likes his players to be consummate professionals, that's why he targeted the players he has already worked with, because he can trust them.

 

He's kind of recreating the bootroom.

[Gym Beglin]

There's also the bonus of one f them knowing something about a good player at another club who may be unhappy, or the manager doesn't fancy them, and we can steal a march on other teams by enquiring quietly.

[Il Fenomeno]

This way of a committee has really affected Barcelona and Man City.

 

Well lets be honest Mancini hasn't seemed too happy about it throughout this summer, and the negative headlines that come with a manager being unhappy is the last thing we need when we've been looking for stability and unity for over 5 years, or even longer.

[piscinin]

This way of a committee has really affected Barcelona and Man City.

 

They both have directors of football that the committee reports to. Who does our committee report to? Rodgers? Not likely, it would be called a staff meeting then. Ayre?

 

Everyone is rightly focusing on the transfer side of things, but isn't this committee supposed to be the means by which all the joined up thinking happens and that ensures the owners strategy is implemented. If that's the case then this extends way beyond transfers, way beyond the first team. It gets into aligning the academy and first team, developing strategic football partnerships for loans etc, management of footballing facilities etc.

 

Without a sporting director or other similar focal point how is all that going to come together? Ayre and Rodgers can't even co-ordinate a transfer window and now we add all these other egos and responsibilities into the mix . . .

[Preston Red]

There's also the bonus of one f them knowing something about a good player at another club who may be unhappy, or the manager doesn't fancy them, and we can steal a march on other teams by enquiring quietly.

 

Which means we can take even longer when it comes to pissing about when trying to sign players.

[TheHowieLama]

You're suggesting this committe is more akin to identifying potential targets. If that's the case, why recruit 3 of city's top scouts?

 

Read the article, it states that they are part of the committee.

[xerxes]

There are some conflicting elements here.

 

Brendan only has three full years managerial experience. Putting anyone with such little experience in charge of the transfer budget of a club like ours, with a £180m a year turnover, would be madness. Getting some help is wise.

 

The problem is that FSG appear to have a problem with giving power to those underneath them. Having a weak MD suits them, having a strong manager(Kenny) did not, appointing a heavyweight CEO or DOF, or both, does not .

 

The boot room was collegiate, but had grown organically with mutual trust and respect. When you try to cobble something together as appears to be happening with us mistrust and turf wars are inevitable until a pecking order is established. Whether it will survive until that point, settle and mature, is another question.

 

I am amazed that so little attention has been paid to the circumstances of the Borini transfer in which Roma made a £5.5m profit in under three weeks, courtesy of FSG investor DiBenedetto. Who really is pulling the strings at Anfield is still unclear.

[coop]

FSG are going ahead with a structure that Rodgers spoke about in his opening press conference.

 

Nothing new to see here but the media want to pin it on our failure in the transfer market to sign a striker as if we are now going to start going over Rodgers head.

[xerxes]

FSG are going ahead with a structure that Rodgers spoke about in his opening press conference.

 

Nothing new to see here but the media want to pin it on our failure in the transfer market to sign a striker as if we are now going to start going over Rodgers head.

It is a big mistake to see this as a media invention.

 

The structure of how players and bought or sold, and whther that works, is key to the future of our club.

 

Bearing in mined the fact that our new scouting team haven't even started yet no-one is talking about success, or failure.

[stringvest]

 

Its never before been 'is this player worth the money and, will he have a sell on value in 3 or 4 years time, yes \ no? If no, we arent signing him no matter what the manager wants.''

 

I've got news for you. It has. It's naive to think that Liverpool managers have been able to buy whoever the hell they like. From Shankly's day. The dynamics may have been different under each regime, but it has always existed in some form.