That was in the 60s. In the 70s and 80s Liverpool had a number of scouts in both Ireland and Scotland, as well as the local scouts Geoff Twentyman and Chris Lawler.
Whilst I usually agree with you MuppetFinder, on this occasion I think you are wrong! Apart from sharing your concerns on FSG getting the correct guys, I think the route they are taking is ultimately the right direction. Whilst I would prefer us to just have appointed a DOF(and I think this is just a ruse towards that) it's a step in the right direction. The English way will never get us to the top with the budget, model and competition we now have. One bad appointment like Hodgson again and we don' t just stand still or delay our growth but potentially fall completely out of all contention. Our model is about having some continuity despite who is in charge, it's the only way our model has any chance of succeeding. Without the stabilty Arsenal have had in managers they would almost certainly have dropped out of the top four and with that lost the revenue they badly need from the champs league. The same could be said of Everton another club with a low budget, without the stability that Moyes has given them they would have not only have had no chance of challenging for top four but possible may have been relegated. I mention both these because our budget is probably some where between both those or very similar. We cannot rely on that stability, it worked for those clubs because they are fantastic managers, Rodgers may prove to be but ultimately it is an unknown right now. Also there are many reasons why we could potentially lose BR; moves to a massive club, quits, stress, god forbid illness etc.... And with any change the whole thing comes crashing down. This model needs stability, the ability to change managers without having to start from scratch. A DOF would give us the ability to choose managers that can continue largely with the existing players, to prove during their interviews how they can work with the existing resources with minimal or cosmetic adjustments. Of course it relies on a very knowledgable DOF in order to implement it!
"Our model is about having some continuity despite who is in charge, it's the only way our model has any chance of succeeding." Which is exactly the major flaw in a DOF appointment.
I disagree with that entirely, I also disagree with the need for a director of football. What I do believe in is a structure. When it comes to transfers, there is a need for a panel below the manager. Lets forget first team coaches and the assistant manager, transfers don't concern then. The panel which is made up of the manager and three others, two or more being scouts, one may be a head scout or advisor as such. They deliberate on who is signed and why they are signed. The final say is left to the manager. This doesn't waste time, and cuts out the dithering.
Liverpool and Everton both had scouts working for them in the 50's! Though the function of the scout in those days was limited to young talent.
That's a very simplistic view I think. No manager has the full picture and in Liverpool's case, the demands upon the financial resources of the club. Sure the manager must have a major say but does not have scope or information upon which to make the final decision.
I agree shanks that having a model that doesn't solely rely on the manager to keep a focus & continuity long term is in general a good one overall but; On day to day footballing matters the final say should always come down to the manager though and that has to include transfers. FSG hite the manager based on the stated vision that we presume is shared??? The debacle on deadline day appears to have been a miscommunication about how much cash was available & what was included in that amount. You could have 20 people in a committee but if the owners haven't made the limit & terms of limit clear the risk of a repeat is not going to be any clearer. So as Dave says; a CEO or whatever title you want to bestow them has to be put in place & has to be part of the FSG inner circle; someone that can make decisions AS FSG. Either they or a selected negotiator represent FSG side. They provide clear rules & limits to the footballing team as to what's available. The commercial side etc quite frankly the manager of football management team won't give a stuff about other than what's the bottom line & where do you need me to turn up, smile & handshake? Then You have the manager, and you can have whatever scouting team & analysts you want. The footballing side produce the list of targets with highlighted priorities & alternatives the negotiator & manager go after targets. But quite frankly this could still be still be done with only 2 people. The Manager and the FSG representative. They just need to talk in the same language. I keep going back to the notion that if FSG pick a manager it must have been because they agreed with his plans, so let him get on with it, just let him know what the financial limits are in advance. Corporations might be huge & complex structurally but processes when broken down to the day to day generally work best when kept as simple as possible.
I agree with that to a point, thats why there is need for scouts. The scouts report to the manager with names having had them watched. The manager then has a chat with the ''fixer',' the fixer arranges the deal having done some haggling. The manager closes the deal. This panel is made up of a maximum of four members, one being the manager.
I couldn't have been more confused and unorganized there if I'd tried. Let's try again: The ideal of highly specialist collective decision making is a great one in theory. The problem is, unless someone has the final say after having access to all the relevant data & expert opinions then who answers for failure? The model currently used by all premier league clubs is one where the manager takes full responsibility for failures on the pitch. Is it fair then to take decision making powers away from him that could directly effect his ability to get results on the pitch? The recent deadline day problems are an example of that. BR didn't appear to have total control of transfer policy in & out so is it his fault if the remaining squad struggles? Obviously if it's his tactics on match day yes but if it's because we don't have the right players at the club?.... If you go with the manager being purely a head coach and the real decision making on "football vision" transfers etc lies with a GM or DoF then we need to get one or name one. The hiring & firing of "managers" (now just coaches) should not effect the day to say running of the team. It's the GM who is ultimately accountable for any long term or more than superficial problems at the club. Problem being we hired a premier league style manager or at the very least have not been clear enough to fans & the media that BR is either a) just a head coach or b) is an American style General Manager. As FSG has committed themselves to 3 years of BR, then he has to be the General Manager/ DoF. You can't sign a manager based on the British model and then try & shoehorn the American model around him. It leads to wishy washy double visions & funny enough miscommunication. It leaves the fans wondering who IS calling the shots. So the GM can hire any team he wants to provide him with the right information for his decisions but he has to make them. So, I still believe all we need is a CEO on site to be FSG.
Agreed. However if they want to hire a technical commitee, it must be no more than a scouting network which never undermines the manager.
Yip, again that's where it gets tricky. Are these analysts & scouts, specialist coaches etc being enforced on BR or is he selecting them? If he's selecting them, all well and good; only him to blame for buying the wrong players, assembling the wrong team, playing the wrong tactics. The moment it is suggested the transfer target selector, analyst or anyone else is an FSG appointment you have put the manager in an untenable position. He will answer for their failures with HIS job if things go wrong on the pitch. IF someone else is making the appointments then it should be THEIR job on the line as you have reduced BR's position to that of head coach. This other person or persons are in effect the GM. This all really smacks of FSG having to compromise what works for them on an entire organizational level because they can't find a guy who's good enough technically but will accept being "just" a head coach in the British system. It looks like they are trying to find a middle way and I'm not sure there is one because of the accountability issue. As I've suggested, the only way for then to get what they want is to make BR the General Manager in "their" image of the post and relinquish some of the controls they've so far seemed reluctant to give him.
Brendan Rodgers has already selected two of them. However the 3rd will be appointed by FSG, the final say will possibly be Brendan Rodgers and in what capacity will also be discussed with him also.
Shanks, for a few weeks you've been saying you want LFC to have an out and out DOF. The DOF is not a very English concept and I feel as if there is some insight I can give to you on this, seeing as my club in Serbia (and most in the region) have survived on this concept for a few decades now. This is a very long post so you can skip it if you want, but it can give you some more information. A DOF is used in continental clubs that need a bridge between the footballing side of the club and the business side of the club. The position is used when the club is controlled by a board of directors and a club president, who himself is an investor. While LFC certainly has a board of directors and investors, these people don't usually have ANY say in the footballing side. In continental clubs, these are people who know nothing about football and just want a return on their money. In these clubs, half of the time the manager identifies a target, tells that to the DOF and the DOF relays that to the board. It is now up to him to convince these members as to WHY we need that investment, what it will bring in terms of shirt sales, performances, and generally why it makes financial sense to buy this player. The other half of the time the president (who is generally the most knowledgable in football) will call in the DOF, tell him that we are buying ____, explain why in a financial sense, and then it is the DOF's role to convince the manager to play him, to promote him, etc. In other words, DOF's are used in clubs that need to live off their profits. They are used in clubs whose day to day survival relies on sales and acquisitions, where a profit is needed immediately. These clubs don't usually look to the future, they have to a) please their board of directors and b) continue to exist, pay wages, infrastructure, etc immediately. Most importantly they are used in clubs with debts. The DOF needs to effectively balance the managers needs with the board's needs and the debt level. However, Liverpool isn't in that situation. We have funds. We have 0 debt. We have a system in place where we are not financially threatened at all. We don't need an immediate return on Fabio Borini. There is no middle step necessary as we trusted Brendan to sign for the future. No one is relying on immediate results to justify spending 11m on Borini. We don't need a middleman to insist the clubs survival lays in the hands of the board to release funds. We don't need anyone to explain the impact of the footballing sides results onto the financial side. The footballing results don't have an immediate impact on the financial side. Our board has needs but those needs are not footballing related. The board, for now, doesn't control the debt or the major finances. They don't have a say in signings either.John Henry and FSG do, directly. Shareholders have an observer and advisory role, but the decision is up to Werner and NESN. What this means is effectively Rodgers just needs to directly tell JH and FSG who he wants and they'll sign them. The mistake with this system was that they had Comolli doing a DOF role without a board to answer to. He only answered to Henry and Werner, who weren't concerned with wasting money or saying no. This lead to inflated prices and a frenzy that hurt us now. The system they are trying to implement is this: What we do however need, is someone to replace Ayre. Comolli had poor judgement in terms of player value but he was good in the sense that he got things done. He personally made sure a deal went through and this is what we lacked on deadline day. In essence Ayre's replacement need not answer to the board or Henry, only a subcommittee designed to take pressure off of the real BoD. They are footballing experts who don't expect profit, only results. This leads to the footballing side having greater long term and short term success, which then transfers up above. The reason this is better than just a DOF is that in the first 2 systems, only the DOF and the Manager knew anything about football. The board didn't, JH and TW didn't either. If BR and IA make mistakes, it's now their fault (which is why Kenny and Comolli got sacked), yet the Board and FSG suffer the consequences. This way, there are 3 levels that know about football, that can reach an independent decision without asking FSG to take a major risk. When the Committee give a final decision, JH and TW know that the decision has been studied extensively.
There was talk of a technical committee being formed when Rodgers was appointed. Something about Brendan refusing to work with a DoF and instead preferring to a select committee that will look at transfers with him.
I've got a better idea, why don't we employ scouts who can recommend players to the manager. Then the manager decides which of these wants in his team and tells whoever is in charge of the finances of the club. Then this person tries to sign those players for a reasonable price. Simplez
How about having a technical team involving say 3 scouts and an ex football manager working in an advisory role, the only thing is the advisor does not have anything to do with team affairs. Say someone like Louis Van Gaal, a football man that can judge players not just on talent but character too. Character is just as important as talent. FSG and Brendan Rodgers want young, hungry players, the hunger is a characteristic and nothing to do with talent.
and also Wayne Hemingway could assess their fashion sense so you don't end up with another Djibril Cisse.
This was always the plan of FSG and was agreed to by Brendan during the talks with him when appointing him. Rodger's has final say on buys, although FSG could not sign off like they did with Dempsey so were yet to see how that will pan out in future transfer windows. This committee is referred to in the interview Rodger's gave when he was unveiled as Manager at his press conference with Ayre and Werner. Its not been officially announced as yet because of complications with the staff from City spitefully being forced to go on Gardening Leave, which were hoping to resolve this month, probably by spending more money, and because there's still people to hire due to people declining our offer at the mast minute when they led us to believe they were taking the job with us. Rodger's is very happy with this setup and was involved in its design.
I really don't understand why we have to make signing a player so complicated. We already have a team of scouts. Scouts report to the head scout, head scout reports to the manager. Manager says who he wants to sign, someone negotiates a price. Which one of those roles do we need Louis van Gaal for? If he wants to be a scout fair enough but I doubt it. Employing anybody else to get involved is a waste of money
Problem with that is that, if anyone in that chain ****s up, gets a report wrong, or misjudges a player, then we're stuck with Voronin, Konchesky, Poulsen, etc. on high wages and no one to cover their errors. A committee of intelligent footballing minds can debate prices, wages, skills, potential and bring a much better conclusion than the whims of one man. Also, you say someone negotiates a price. Yeah who? Ian Ayre? Damien Comolli? It's too much of a risk to spend 20m on one player based on what one man thinks. DC was wrong on many levels when he negotiated what he thought Downing, Adam, Henderson and Carroll were worth. If BR looks at, lets say, Messi, and the committee says he wouldn't perform on a cold rainy Monday night in Stoke, they can pool names and get some alternatives in as well, ie. Ronaldo. It will still work in the way that you want it to work, only now we will have more feedback and we will have a number of opinions, connections, and more people involved in actively getting some signings done. If BR wants someone, he'll get them. This way he just needs someone to make sure he's not signing Bebe. Imagine this, a year ago: Scouts see a player assisting loads, report that to the head scout. Head scout likes the look of him, reports that to Kenny. Kenny likes the look of him, reports that to Comolli, who says he's worth 16m. He proposes this to the technical committee made up of Mourinho, Van Gaal, Rijkaard, Txiki Bergiririrastan and Saami Hyypia who tell him he's an idiot for asking for Stewart Downing. They propose Eden Hazard instead and we win the league with a goal difference that cricket teams would be jealous of.
