Off Topic You can't only blame Brendan Rodgers for Liverpool's bad signings...

You can't only blame Brendan Rodgers for Liverpool's bad signings... how much is the boss taking flak for transfer committee?

• Rodgers has 24 signings credited to him since he joined Liverpool in 2012
• How many are actually his? Club's recruitment policy is run by committee
• The argument will be that the manager has the final say on recruitment, but what are his options?
• Maybe, this summer, he should be left to make his own mistake

There are 24 signings credited to Brendan Rodgers at Liverpool and it is hard to get a decent starting XI from the lot of them. Some, like Daniel Sturridge, have been dogged by bad luck. Others, like Emre Can, may train on. Most, like Mario Balotelli, have been hopeless.
Yet how many are actually his? Liverpool’s recruitment policy is run by a transfer committee. To what extent is Rodgers taking a very public fall for the mistakes of colleagues?
Dave Fallows heads the department, Michael Edwards is director of performance analysis and Barry Hunter is chief scout; where are they in all this? So much of the traditional manager’s role is farmed out these days, yet the buck still stops at the boss’s door. As six Stoke City goals went in at the weekend, all eyes were fixed on the man in the technical area.

please log in to view this image

Brendan Rodgers struggles to get his message across to striker Mario Balotelli, whose form has been woeful

please log in to view this image

Daniel Sturridge started just seven of his 12 Premier League appearances during an injury-hit campaign

please log in to view this image

The versatile Emre Can has been a rare bright spot from Liverpool's massive £115million summer outlay
Yet is Rodgers working with what he wants or what he is given? And could it be this knowledge that saves his job this summer?
Simon Mignolet may have arrived in the Rodgers era, but was he actually a Rodgers signing? And what of Luis Alberto, or Iago Aspas? The argument will be that the manager has the final say on recruitment, but what are his options? How are the deals presented? There is a difference between desiring a player or simply acquiescing to the best of a poor bunch. Did Rodgers pursue Balotelli or did he merely come to realise the alternatives were even worse? Any review of his season must take this into account.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3098340/You-t-blame-Brendan-Rodgers-Liverpool-s-bad-signings.html#ixzz3bK9vnIqs

 

Who knows there should be more transparency as to who is responsible for the shower of **** that we've bought.

 

Only FSG know, so I guess they will take it into consideration during their review. But at the end of the day, we are in trouble if we have a system where Rodgers can't veto the signing of a player.

 

I'll try and not get involved in the whole transfer thing.

So whilst some may not want to blame him for recruitment, I'm annoyed that more isn't made of his poor team selections and tactics. The whole recruitment policy is just a way of deflecting the attention from what was a poor season not just for the team but the manager.

 

That's how it should work, and how it does work at the biggest teams across Europe.

Managers are not managers - they are first team coaches. Let them focus purely on tactics, coaching and motivation. That's where their expertise lies. So let the specialists look after recruiting.

 

I don't think European managers all have signings forced on them and are told to make a team, sure that happens at Madrid, but then again when you're hoovering up all talent in the market then it's less of an issue.

 

That's how it works because the first team coaches accept that role. It's similar to American sports where you have a team who are in charge of recruiting which are headed by a General Manager (Director of Football, applied to football), and then you have the coaches who use the resources at his disposal.

It's only in UK where we expect managers to have full control.

 

Yet managers are going to play players, for one reason or the other they may not want a player. Example is Mario Balotelli, who knows if he
was forced on Rodgers?. All the signs and warning were there.."not manageable". Yet no one was willing to listen.

 

Well in that case you have a DoF, who is fully bought in to the type of football the club seeks to play etc and he leads the transfers that fit the bill. We have a transfer committee, that is different, that is to stop Rodgers hoovering up crap I suspect, but I doubt they force signings on him: No point signing a players that doesn't fit the style of football Rodgers is trying to play

 

That's because Rodgers has an ego and wants control.

First Team Coaches at other clubs look to develop what they're given and get the most out of the resources. As I say, that's their role and they accept it.

 

This is the thing - the DoF is the one who will set the style of play i.e. attacking football. Then he will find the right manager who suits that philosophy, and he will give the committee the criteria or remit for finding players that fit the profile.

The 'manager' is just a small figure within the whole structure. Completely different to how we're operating at the moment which appears to be a complete mix of both continental and traditional methods.

 

Any club you have Director of Football, things do not work out normally: I can name some clubs where DOF or manager resigned
because of conflicts between manager and dof.

 

But then the DoF will ensure the philosophy stays the same and a new manager comes in with the same vision. This is what helps clubs reduce transition/rebuilding periods when new managers come in.

Managers come and go - structures remain.

 

I will do the customary 'oh yes you can' followed by the 'oh no you cant' and finish with the usual 'he's behind you!'

 

i the end i can simply say...

rodgers is a spineless **** who will fail if he didn't block these deals

or

rodgers had a big hand in all of them so will fail cos he can't spot a player

either way the buck stops with rodgers.... at this rate it will be the 25th century before lfc are a big club again

 

I struggle to see where the blame should really lay due to the setup, it looks like it is a blame passing game going on.

Manager: Has a philosophy and a dossier, knows how he wants his team to play and the types of players he needs.

Scouts: Do they work from guidance from the manager, his philosophy. Or just put forward players they like?

Owners: I understand they look for value for money, potential and players tha tcould have resale value, but who do they take guidance from...Manager, Scout or external "experts"

The Transfer Committee: ???

 

It doesn't matter in Madrid, as they are buying global super stars who any arm chair scout could pick out as a world class footballer.

It's different for smaller clubs, as they can't attract the players Madrid can, so need someone with a good eye for talent buying the players.

Liverpool took in a lot of money for Suarez, but Rodgers has done what Dalglish did a few years back, spent most of it on average footballers.

You may aswell have just given Suarez away for free, as the players he's brought in just aren't good enough

 

Nice lure... pity you didn't tie it to your line when you cast it... let's see if there are many biters fir this obvious wum.

 

This is all just psychology 101.

People cannot accept lfc are this **** so they seek out someone to blame.

One side make the committee the scape goats ans rodgers a saint the other side laud rodgers and blame a faceless committee

The truth is lfc are just **** really.

I'm at acceptance stage... sone seem to be at denial, anger etc

 

I think there is a massive divide in our fan base, similar to when Roy was here.

Rodgers has to go IMO.