Gotcha.
The Transfer Committee
- Thread starter WhyAlwaysMe?
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
I was going to post something similar re: the transfer committee. The concept is being treated with a ridiculous amount of suspicion.
There is nothing wrong with the idea of a committee. The problem often lies with the organization and / or the people sitting on them. If it's a dynamic organization and everyone involved is bought into the vision, there should be no problem.
There is nothing wrong with the idea of a committee. The problem often lies with the organization and / or the people sitting on them. If it's a dynamic organization and everyone involved is bought into the vision, there should be no problem.
Every club has a " transfer committee", they just don't call it that.
Klopp .. Dortmund. Disagrees with Tinto.
Yup. If we called it the Boot Room like it was back in the day there'd be no problem
...because it operated in the informal way macca described. There's a big difference between that and a formal style of committee procedure.
Haha. My first job was in the Civil Service and they solemnly showed us these things on training courses. They were then studiously ignored in practice.
Would you still disagree with me if Klopp can only get the shit players from Dortmund?
Also what happens if we can't get the players from Dortmund that he wants? What do we do for our transfer policy then?
A big part of the current committee's failure surely has to do with the fact that Rodgers' vision of what types of players we should go after didn't align much with that of the rest of the committee (or with most of them anyway). So instead of working together by letting the manager set broad parameters and then refining the lists our scouts came up with, the committee and the manager were fighting for their largely incompatible visions of LFC's future, with Rodgers leaning on the familiar and rest of the committee looking for undervalued talent in all kinds of far-away places.
Each side tried hard to land their favored targets and often both succeeded, which made the squad unbalanced by bringing in too many new players at once, overloading certain positions and closing the door of opportunity to the young players we were supposed to develop as a matter of stragegy. The worst part was that this tension seems to have started translating onto the pitch with decisions being made based on whose signing this player was or wasn't.* It's no wonder that after 3 years of these competing and incompatible visions we totally lost a sense of direction as a club.
*_____________
Especially after the Balotelli debacle, Rodgers seemed far less inclined to devote his time and effort to developing players who in his mind were "forced" on him by the committee. I think the benching of Sakho, loaning away Markovic, excluding Origi and even the rumours of us supposedly offering Moreno on loan in the summer (which thankfully never happened) were all part of the same pattern, where this season Rodgers got the owners permission to do things more or less "his" way, even if it meant "burying" the committee's signings.
Each side tried hard to land their favored targets and often both succeeded, which made the squad unbalanced by bringing in too many new players at once, overloading certain positions and closing the door of opportunity to the young players we were supposed to develop as a matter of stragegy. The worst part was that this tension seems to have started translating onto the pitch with decisions being made based on whose signing this player was or wasn't.* It's no wonder that after 3 years of these competing and incompatible visions we totally lost a sense of direction as a club.
*_____________
Especially after the Balotelli debacle, Rodgers seemed far less inclined to devote his time and effort to developing players who in his mind were "forced" on him by the committee. I think the benching of Sakho, loaning away Markovic, excluding Origi and even the rumours of us supposedly offering Moreno on loan in the summer (which thankfully never happened) were all part of the same pattern, where this season Rodgers got the owners permission to do things more or less "his" way, even if it meant "burying" the committee's signings.
No ! And for the record I don't believe he will be able to sign the likes of Reus or Hummels.
Although I agree with most of your posts in this thread this is certainly not true and BR should be credited with that fact.
The most Important Issue of the last year. With the best reply of the last year.
I cant believe your first job post dated the Cleese videos 😉
Liverpool's fabled transfer committee is not the problem – just ask Southampton or Swansea
Anfield's woes have been caused by a lack of vision and good enough personnel, rather than the principle of collective decision-making
John W Henry's Liverpool may lack a long-term strategy Photo: GETTY IMAGES
By Jeremy Wilson, Deputy Football Correspondent
10:16AM BST 07 Oct 2015
There have been times during 72 turbulent hours on Merseyside when it has been difficult to know whether the reputation of Brendan Rodgers or the concept of a “transfer committee” has suffered most damage. Former players, coaches and pundits have been queuing up to bemoan the long-lost and supposedly more efficient days when it was the manager that controlled the recruitment of players.
It has sometimes felt as if all Liverpool needed to do was supply Rodgers with a reliable car and trust his judgment in spending every spare evening driving up and down the motorway to personally uncover the next big talent. It is a nice thought but the simple truth is that, aside from an unfortunate name that conjures images of indecisive old men in suits, Liverpool’s maligned “transfer committee” has much more in common with the best recruitment practices in England than any system that centralises power in the hands of the manager.
Former Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers did not have full control over transfers Photo: ACTION IMAGES
Talk to just about anyone involved in transfers at boardroom level and they will tell you that football recruitment is moving only in one direction and that is towards a wider use of analytics and technology rather than any reliance on a manager’s gut instinct. Indeed, glance through the Premier League and it is only really at Arsenal and just possibly Manchester United or Everton where there is anything resembling a traditional set-up that might allow the manager to not only train the players but also oversee the scouting and buying or selling as well as salaries and contract renewals. It all suggests that Liverpool’s problem has been less structural and more in the execution of their strategy.
Just Arsène Wenger at Arsenal is understood to run an autocratic transfer sysytem
Swansea City and Southampton are most commonly cited as the examples of best practice and, while these clubs have a more identifiable long-term vision and have certainly been far more effective in their delivery, they are actually even further removed from the idea of an all-conquering manager than Liverpool. The clearest evidence of this is how the clubs have continued to defy expectations and punch above their spend regardless of managerial comings and goings.
Garry Monk has been superb for Swansea but, then, admirers of Kenny Jackett, Roberto Martínez, Rodgers and Michael Laudrup could also argue the same over the past decade. Similarly, ever since the takeover at Southampton of the Liebherr family, every manager from Alan Pardew, Nigel Adkins and Mauricio Pochettino through now to Ronald Koeman can claim to have succeeded. Maybe it is all a coincidence. Or perhaps we should just acknowledge that many managers are performing precisely because the very structures around them are limiting their power and actually designed to seamlessly withstand the departure of any one individual, regardless of how important.
Swansea are a model of success
Any prospective manager interviewing for a job at Swansea or Southampton who wanted to dramatically rearrange the backroom staff and recruitment operation, perhaps to work with a few of his own trusted scouts or agents, would be discarded within minutes. That is not to say that players are signed without the managers’ involvement – Monk and Koeman must be in agreement to bring any player into Swansea or Southampton and will regularly put forward their own recommendations – but there is then a vigorous process of analysis.
As well as Monk, David Leadbeater (head of recruitment), Tim Henderson (technical recruitment scout) and George Foster (head of European scouting) are key to the identification of players at Swansea. Targets such as André Ayew and then Bafétimbi Gomis were watched for several years before being recruited and even then it is the chairman Huw Jenkins who takes care of negotiations.
Ronald Koeman's Southampton have coped despite losing a number of key players
The superiority of Southampton over Liverpool in recruitment has been regularly evident in several direct deals during the past 18 months but the edge that they have had owes nothing to any system of autocratic managerial power. It has been all about a team that knows its specific roles and plans both for the long and short term. The development of a cutting edge training and medical environment has in itself also now become a major selling-point to potential signings and academy recruits.
The structure is such that, if Liverpool did unexpectedly turn their attention to Koeman, the subsequent upheaval need not be catastrophic. That much was evident when Southampton absorbed the departures of their manager, chairman, head of recruitment and seven leading players in less than two years but could still have a team capable of going to Chelsea last Saturday and winning 3-1.
The scouting and recruitment department is not led by some friend of any manager but a 32-year-old specialist in his field by the name of Ross Wilson. He oversees a network of 20 full-time analytic experts based at the club’s Staplewood Campus as well as a further 30 scouts and representatives operating across the UK and Europe. Wilson and his team report to executive director Les Reed who, in turn, works with Koeman on constantly identifying targets and planning a strategy that looks years into the future but is also agile enough to cope with sudden unexpected demands.
The directors in charge of the money – led by chief executive Gareth Rogers – then work to ensure deals are affordable and structurally sensibly. They do not offer footballing opinions to Koeman or Reed but, equally, they would not want their manager wasting energy on worrying about the ins and outs of the club’s finances.
The way that Southampton were able to replace Adam Lallana, Rickie Lambert and Luke Shaw last summer with Sadio Mané, Dusan Tadic, Ryan Bertrand and Graziano Pelle was not some fluke. Similarly, the departures this summer of Morgan Scheiderlin and Toby Aderweireld were long anticipated and so in came Oriel Romeu, Jordy Clasie and Virgil van Dijk. Time will show whether they can again withstand the loss of such first-team quality and actually improve but their very structure means that it is a safe bet that the next Mané or even Victor Wanyama is already being identified in anticipation of deals ahead.
The question of Liverpool, then, should not be whether they place huge power in the hands of Jürgen Klopp but whether their “committee” of Michael Edwards, Ian Ayre, Michael Gordon, Dave Fallows and Barry Hunter is actually performing.
For if there is any lesson to be learnt from those clubs who have really succeeded in recent Premier League history, it is emphatically not that Liverpool lack an all-powerful manager. It is that they have lacked a long-term vision and perhaps also the recruitment personnel that will allow them to thrive regardless of how long Rodgers’ successor lasts.
Anfield's woes have been caused by a lack of vision and good enough personnel, rather than the principle of collective decision-making
John W Henry's Liverpool may lack a long-term strategy Photo: GETTY IMAGES
By Jeremy Wilson, Deputy Football Correspondent
10:16AM BST 07 Oct 2015
There have been times during 72 turbulent hours on Merseyside when it has been difficult to know whether the reputation of Brendan Rodgers or the concept of a “transfer committee” has suffered most damage. Former players, coaches and pundits have been queuing up to bemoan the long-lost and supposedly more efficient days when it was the manager that controlled the recruitment of players.
It has sometimes felt as if all Liverpool needed to do was supply Rodgers with a reliable car and trust his judgment in spending every spare evening driving up and down the motorway to personally uncover the next big talent. It is a nice thought but the simple truth is that, aside from an unfortunate name that conjures images of indecisive old men in suits, Liverpool’s maligned “transfer committee” has much more in common with the best recruitment practices in England than any system that centralises power in the hands of the manager.
Talk to just about anyone involved in transfers at boardroom level and they will tell you that football recruitment is moving only in one direction and that is towards a wider use of analytics and technology rather than any reliance on a manager’s gut instinct. Indeed, glance through the Premier League and it is only really at Arsenal and just possibly Manchester United or Everton where there is anything resembling a traditional set-up that might allow the manager to not only train the players but also oversee the scouting and buying or selling as well as salaries and contract renewals. It all suggests that Liverpool’s problem has been less structural and more in the execution of their strategy.
Just Arsène Wenger at Arsenal is understood to run an autocratic transfer sysytem
Swansea City and Southampton are most commonly cited as the examples of best practice and, while these clubs have a more identifiable long-term vision and have certainly been far more effective in their delivery, they are actually even further removed from the idea of an all-conquering manager than Liverpool. The clearest evidence of this is how the clubs have continued to defy expectations and punch above their spend regardless of managerial comings and goings.
Garry Monk has been superb for Swansea but, then, admirers of Kenny Jackett, Roberto Martínez, Rodgers and Michael Laudrup could also argue the same over the past decade. Similarly, ever since the takeover at Southampton of the Liebherr family, every manager from Alan Pardew, Nigel Adkins and Mauricio Pochettino through now to Ronald Koeman can claim to have succeeded. Maybe it is all a coincidence. Or perhaps we should just acknowledge that many managers are performing precisely because the very structures around them are limiting their power and actually designed to seamlessly withstand the departure of any one individual, regardless of how important.
Swansea are a model of success
Any prospective manager interviewing for a job at Swansea or Southampton who wanted to dramatically rearrange the backroom staff and recruitment operation, perhaps to work with a few of his own trusted scouts or agents, would be discarded within minutes. That is not to say that players are signed without the managers’ involvement – Monk and Koeman must be in agreement to bring any player into Swansea or Southampton and will regularly put forward their own recommendations – but there is then a vigorous process of analysis.
As well as Monk, David Leadbeater (head of recruitment), Tim Henderson (technical recruitment scout) and George Foster (head of European scouting) are key to the identification of players at Swansea. Targets such as André Ayew and then Bafétimbi Gomis were watched for several years before being recruited and even then it is the chairman Huw Jenkins who takes care of negotiations.
The superiority of Southampton over Liverpool in recruitment has been regularly evident in several direct deals during the past 18 months but the edge that they have had owes nothing to any system of autocratic managerial power. It has been all about a team that knows its specific roles and plans both for the long and short term. The development of a cutting edge training and medical environment has in itself also now become a major selling-point to potential signings and academy recruits.
The structure is such that, if Liverpool did unexpectedly turn their attention to Koeman, the subsequent upheaval need not be catastrophic. That much was evident when Southampton absorbed the departures of their manager, chairman, head of recruitment and seven leading players in less than two years but could still have a team capable of going to Chelsea last Saturday and winning 3-1.
The scouting and recruitment department is not led by some friend of any manager but a 32-year-old specialist in his field by the name of Ross Wilson. He oversees a network of 20 full-time analytic experts based at the club’s Staplewood Campus as well as a further 30 scouts and representatives operating across the UK and Europe. Wilson and his team report to executive director Les Reed who, in turn, works with Koeman on constantly identifying targets and planning a strategy that looks years into the future but is also agile enough to cope with sudden unexpected demands.
The directors in charge of the money – led by chief executive Gareth Rogers – then work to ensure deals are affordable and structurally sensibly. They do not offer footballing opinions to Koeman or Reed but, equally, they would not want their manager wasting energy on worrying about the ins and outs of the club’s finances.
The way that Southampton were able to replace Adam Lallana, Rickie Lambert and Luke Shaw last summer with Sadio Mané, Dusan Tadic, Ryan Bertrand and Graziano Pelle was not some fluke. Similarly, the departures this summer of Morgan Scheiderlin and Toby Aderweireld were long anticipated and so in came Oriel Romeu, Jordy Clasie and Virgil van Dijk. Time will show whether they can again withstand the loss of such first-team quality and actually improve but their very structure means that it is a safe bet that the next Mané or even Victor Wanyama is already being identified in anticipation of deals ahead.
The question of Liverpool, then, should not be whether they place huge power in the hands of Jürgen Klopp but whether their “committee” of Michael Edwards, Ian Ayre, Michael Gordon, Dave Fallows and Barry Hunter is actually performing.
For if there is any lesson to be learnt from those clubs who have really succeeded in recent Premier League history, it is emphatically not that Liverpool lack an all-powerful manager. It is that they have lacked a long-term vision and perhaps also the recruitment personnel that will allow them to thrive regardless of how long Rodgers’ successor lasts.
Interesting article but there are holes in its argument IMO:
1. It acknowledges that the Arse and ManUre are exceptions to the rule for which it's arguing, and guess what - they're two of the top four clubs; and
2. It doesn't tell us anything about how those clubs which do operate some kind of committee-type system actually go about it - not all such approaches are the same, and the differences can be crucial to success or failure.
So - food for thought definitely, but far from conclusive.
1. It acknowledges that the Arse and ManUre are exceptions to the rule for which it's arguing, and guess what - they're two of the top four clubs; and
2. It doesn't tell us anything about how those clubs which do operate some kind of committee-type system actually go about it - not all such approaches are the same, and the differences can be crucial to success or failure.
So - food for thought definitely, but far from conclusive.
They have, but I suspect losing David Gill was when that problem started.
I am talking about the this season mostly; how after we overloaded on expensive AMs which meant Markovic had to be discarded after just one season and the likes of Teixeira had no chance to get minutes.
Michael Edwards is surplus to requirements if Klopp appoints his own men surely? Peter Kraweitz is a video analyst and scout. This obvious raises questions over Fallows. Edwards is an apparent favourite with FSG, co stanly forwarding data to them re: opposition players, potential players. Interesting to see how this will unfold.
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Locked
