A Comprehensive Review of Brendan Rodgers' Liverpool Signings 2012-2014

1. Loan players should not be included in this list! they never do well at any club.

2. Anybody that has not been at the club for a full season should not be on this list! Suarez only scored 4 goals in his first (half) season at Liverpool, what a miss he was!

3. Any player under 23 shouldn't be on this list, they haven't peaked yet so not possible to say they are a miss

timmy5x said:

1. Loan players should not be included in this list! they never do well at any club.

2. Anybody that has not been at the club for a full season should not be on this list! Suarez only scored 4 goals in his first (half) season at Liverpool, what a miss he was!

3. Any player under 23 shouldn't be on this list, they haven't peaked yet so not possible to say they are a miss

Click to expand...

thats your opinion and fair enough..

but........ i don't agree....

1. loans are decisions to be judged

2. I still say you can judge a player by looking and not need years to do so. We are at elast being open to having our minds changed by these players... and of course rodger sis giving them every chance to change minds as well

3. u23? surely they can be called potential. that would mean we could not say can, coutinho etc are hits as well as not saying alberto... bit of a waste that.

in any event your view is more than valid so its all opinion which is the whole point of having a forum to talk on said opinions...

Define a hit or a miss!?

We're a business. Is it turning a profit on a player? Is it developing them to a higher value if they were sold today? If so, surely too early to judge many of these players? is it purely on performances (in which case Joe Allen must be moving into the hit category, surely?)

It's all too subjective for me. MITO clearly doesn't rate Lallana. I do. Did we overpay for him? Probably. Doesn't mean that he won't be a hit (or a miss). I feel Markovic is too lightweight and is nowhere nearly as fast as I expected him to be......overpaid again? Probably. Given how hard it is to find good CB's, surely Sahko would go for £20m plus right now - does this equate to a hit!? If it's financial, which a much more objective measure and we sell Ballo for £20m tomorrow (unlikely i know!!), he'd be a hit then? This is what makes football so interesting.

All in all, many of the signings under BR are worth equal or more than what we paid for them. There are some that we will just lose on too.

Our strategy is clear. Buy talent and improve it. Is BR doing this? I think he is, although there are some glaring misses....but that's no different to anyone else.

astroturfnaut said:

Allen is a useful player who can control a game and is a good addition to our squad.

Click to expand...

Yeah mate just like he controlled the game against City

[HASHTAG]#rep[/HASHTAG]

KENNY_KOP_KING said:

Define a hit or a miss!?

We're a business. Is it turning a profit on a player? Is it developing them to a higher value if they were sold today? If so, surely too early to judge many of these players? is it purely on performances (in which case Joe Allen must be moving into the hit category, surely?)

It's all too subjective for me. MITO clearly doesn't rate Lallana. I do. Did we overpay for him? Probably. Doesn't mean that he won't be a hit (or a miss). I feel Markovic is too lightweight and is nowhere nearly as fast as I expected him to be......overpaid again? Probably. Given how hard it is to find good CB's, surely Sahko would go for £20m plus right now - does this equate to a hit!? If it's financial, which a much more objective measure and we sell Ballo for £20m tomorrow (unlikely i know!!), he'd be a hit then? This is what makes football so interesting.

All in all, many of the signings under BR are worth equal or more than what we paid for them. There are some that we will just lose on too.

Our strategy is clear. Buy talent and improve it. Is BR doing this? I think he is, although there are some glaring misses....but that's no different to anyone else.

Click to expand...

well that is an interesting question

for me.... three things

1. Do they improve the team

2. are they value for money

3. have they delivered

so..... Joe allen doesn't improve the team when he is in cos usual is cos someone is injured. We'd all i think rather soemone else play instead if available (lucas or now can judging by this website majority views).. he was not value for money then and has he delivered? no he's been injured far too much.

Lallana... I don't think he improves us, i still don't see why he was bought except to play rather than coutinho. If we were to sell him he'd only fetch halef the fee i reckon and has he delivered? not yet.

Sahko... hmmmm... yes he improves the team massively, was 17mil good value for a sneior internationl CB... marginal but probably yes as you've said and has he delivered... not so much cos he too has been injured a lot but when he's played he has.

I think personally we are not in the business of turning a profit. we are in the business of winning things. OR WE BETTER BE!!! club who sell players fro a profit include the mighty ajax and the like. We should be i nthe business of not bloody losing money on players but should be no 1 going to win.

Cheslea bought up lots of young players but are out to loan them out, turn a profit if they don't work but to stick them in to improve thier side.

We should surely be buying to build the best team, should be out to protect the investment by ensuring we make our money back.. thats why i say points 1,2,3.

moreinjuredthanowen said:

well that is an interesting question

for me.... three things

1. Do they improve the team

2. are they value for money

3. have they delivered

so..... Joe allen doesn't improve the team when he is in cos usual is cos someone is injured. We'd all i think rather soemone else play instead if available (lucas or now can judging by this website majority views).. he was not value for money then and has he delivered? no he's been injured far too much.

Lallana... I don't think he improves us, i still don't see why he was bought except to play rather than coutinho. If we were to sell him he'd only fetch halef the fee i reckon and has he delivered? not yet.

Sahko... hmmmm... yes he improves the team massively, was 17mil good value for a sneior internationl CB... marginal but probably yes as you've said and has he delivered... not so much cos he too has been injured a lot but when he's played he has.

I think personally we are not in the business of turning a profit. we are in the business of winning things. OR WE BETTER BE!!! club who sell players fro a profit include the mighty ajax and the like. We should be i nthe business of not bloody losing money on players but should be no 1 going to win.

Cheslea bought up lots of young players but are out to loan them out, turn a profit if they don't work but to stick them in to improve thier side.

We should surely be buying to build the best team, should be out to protect the investment by ensuring we make our money back.. thats why i say points 1,2,3.

Click to expand...

I'd agree that we should be in the business of winning things. That has to be our ultimate goal every year. But whether we like it or not, winning off the field (commercially) has to come before winning on the field. Money = trophies (in the main, anyway). Profit from player sales is just another revenue stream that we must exploit whenever possible. We have a core competence of developing players (all clubs have this to varying degrees, it's not just us) and with it the associated cost, we should, wherever possible leverage that. By all means, sign Ings for say £3m and sell him a year later for £7m or develop him to the point where he's in the squad, Either way it's good for LFC. And slowly, but surely.....you build a team worthy of the goal that you set out for; winning.

When it gets to the big sums; Lallana, Lovren, Markovic et al, it's exactly the same.....although you'll be buying with the view of them being in the first team/squad and the risk of failure is higher. If I look at the list of players that BR has bought, he has his share of 'failures'. But if they are sold at a small profit, will they really have been failures to the business? Borini is a perfect example. No question that he hasn't delivered on the pitch but If he'd been sold for what, £15m last year, BR would have been applauded for making the most out of his availability. If he's now sold for £5m, he'll be mocked. The margins of success and failure in the transfer market are way too subjective and highly emotive usually....so i prefer to look at the general direction and not individual successes and failures.

KENNY_KOP_KING said:

I'd agree that we should be in the business of winning things. That has to be our ultimate goal every year. But whether we like it or not, winning off the field (commercially) has to come before winning on the field. Money = trophies (in the main, anyway). Profit from player sales is just another revenue stream that we must exploit whenever possible. We have a core competence of developing players (all clubs have this to varying degrees, it's not just us) and with it the associated cost, we should, wherever possible leverage that. By all means, sign Ings for say £3m and sell him a year later for £7m or develop him to the point where he's in the squad, Either way it's good for LFC. And slowly, but surely.....you build a team worthy of the goal that you set out for; winning.

When it gets to the big sums; Lallana, Lovren, Markovic et al, it's exactly the same.....although you'll be buying with the view of them being in the first team/squad and the risk of failure is higher. If I look at the list of players that BR has bought, he has his share of 'failures'. But if they are sold at a small profit, will they really have been failures to the business? Borini is a perfect example. No question that he hasn't delivered on the pitch but If he'd been sold for what, £15m last year, BR would have been applauded for making the most out of his availability. If he's now sold for £5m, he'll be mocked. The margins of success and failure in the transfer market are way too subjective and highly emotive usually....so i prefer to look at the general direction and not individual successes and failures.

Click to expand...

you view is fair and it is in some part align to exactly what cheslea are doing... but i have to point out.

just take lallana for one... i would be utterly shocked if he goes for anything near 25mil. I would contend he is bought purely to play for us and be a 5 year investment over contract.

contrast this to courtois. He cost chelsea something of the order of 4million and cheslea immediately recouped that by loaning to atletico.. good business as if he'd been good but not great his wages were covered

contrast again (example)

Balotelli. buy fo 16mil... pay his agent X... pay him X signing on fee, pay him 70k per week... Or say lovern.. who ever... Its very hard to turn a profit on a big buy. if they have not delivered for the first team they don't increase in value do they?

for me 10 mil is no longer a big fee and you can turn a player like origi around in 2/3 years and prob make it back even if he only plays league cup. however when you buy a 25 year old they want big wages and tat changes things too.

I don't mind a "has potential" category when you re paying low relative wages and can loan they guy out and ge tthem covered

I would have said that borini was a miss last year and yes if he'd gone for 15mil and turned a small profit ok.... but we must also see the other side... we are not chelsea.... we don't have enough funds to turn players and not be affected. I would then say there is a lost opportunity cost from carrying borini.... here is what i mean. If we'd never have bought him who else could we have bought? every singing has such a cost. it is hard to measure but for every miss we turn even at breakeven thats another squad place not working for us and so we've fewer options on the pitch and that hits our success.

moreinjuredthanowen said:

you view is fair and it is in some part align to exactly what cheslea are doing... but i have to point out.

just take lallana for one... i would be utterly shocked if he goes for anything near 25mil. I would contend he is bought purely to play for us and be a 5 year investment over contract.

contrast this to courtois. He cost chelsea something of the order of 4million and cheslea immediately recouped that by loaning to atletico.. good business as if he'd been good but not great his wages were covered

contrast again (example)

Balotelli. buy fo 16mil... pay his agent X... pay him X signing on fee, pay him 70k per week... Or say lovern.. who ever... Its very hard to turn a profit on a big buy. if they have not delivered for the first team they don't increase in value do they?

for me 10 mil is no longer a big fee and you can turn a player like origi around in 2/3 years and prob make it back even if he only plays league cup. however when you buy a 25 year old they want big wages and tat changes things too.

I don't mind a "has potential" category when you re paying low relative wages and can loan they guy out and ge tthem covered

I would have said that borini was a miss last year and yes if he'd gone for 15mil and turned a small profit ok.... but we must also see the other side... we are not chelsea.... we don't have enough funds to turn players and not be affected. I would then say there is a lost opportunity cost from carrying borini.... here is what i mean. If we'd never have bought him who else could we have bought? every singing has such a cost. it is hard to measure but for every miss we turn even at breakeven thats another squad place not working for us and so we've fewer options on the pitch and that hits our success.

Click to expand...

Sure, there is always risk with every purchase. In our case, we're stuck with 3 strikers that have offered us the square root of feck all

You're probably right about Lallana, unless we sell him at 29 for top $$. Who knows. Would actually love to sit on a strategy meeting at the club. Not just on the playing side either......

if lallana delivers 10 goals min per year for next 4 years and plays a part in driving us to at worst top 4 then he will have delivered and the 25mil will be forgotten. if he sits on the bench while coutinho does this... well then he will be considered a very expensive reserve.

We won't see the value back in the end but if he delivers on the pitch in the end then he can justify it.... i just don't rate what he's got to go do that.

moreinjuredthanowen said:

thats your opinion and fair enough..

but........ i don't agree....

1. loans are decisions to be judged

2. I still say you can judge a player by looking and not need years to do so. We are at elast being open to having our minds changed by these players... and of course rodger sis giving them every chance to change minds as well

3. u23? surely they can be called potential. that would mean we could not say can, coutinho etc are hits as well as not saying alberto... bit of a waste that.

in any event your view is more than valid so its all opinion which is the whole point of having a forum to talk on said opinions...

Click to expand...

1. Loans may be decisions, but they are usually cover player for weak positions, or very young players. This makes them inherently bad performers, so they shouldn't be judged the same as a purchased player. For instance aly cissokho was on loan as cover for Enrique, who turned out to be injured most of the season. This meant he had to play 15 games in a season where we came 2nd in the league. To say he was a miss is just plain wrong, he was bought as cover and that's exactly what he did, fine he wasn't first team quality, but he was never meant to be, so to judge him as such is utter stupidity.

2. Exactly how long should we take to judge a player 1 game 2 , maybe we should change our mind after every game, Gerrard what a miss, total waste of wages, Lucas **** worst DM in the league, Sturridge greedy and wasteful.

3. So you want to call young players that are out on loan misses when they haven't even got a chance to be a hit. If Ford got injured and never came back the same would he still be a hit?

Markovic bugged the hell out of me against City. Seemed to be responsible for all our good attacks breaking down.

timmy5x said:

1. Loans may be decisions, but they are usually cover player for weak positions, or very young players. This makes them inherently bad performers, so they shouldn't be judged the same as a purchased player. For instance aly cissokho was on loan as cover for Enrique, who turned out to be injured most of the season. This meant he had to play 15 games in a season where we came 2nd in the league. To say he was a miss is just plain wrong, he was bought as cover and that's exactly what he did, fine he wasn't first team quality, but he was never meant to be, so to judge him as such is utter stupidity.

2. Exactly how long should we take to judge a player 1 game 2 , maybe we should change our mind after every game, Gerrard what a miss, total waste of wages, Lucas **** worst DM in the league, Sturridge greedy and wasteful.

3. So you want to call young players that are out on loan misses when they haven't even got a chance to be a hit. If Ford got injured and never came back the same would he still be a hit?

Click to expand...

well at our level they can be cover. but i suppose there is a case for saying some are lets see we are not sure kind of buys. in the end however they all can be judged. perhaps we judge against different criteria.

example lambert though not a loan is judged differently to balotelli. one is main man supposedly the other back up. I stll judge lambert as a bit of a waste frankly.

2. how long? I thin you can make a goood judgement call quickly. It could be 5mins... no i am serious you can llok at a ugy and know if they have talent can't you? well I knew instantly as some will tell you that n'gog was muck the day i saw him in reserve team trim. Oyu would be able to judge lallana's pace instantly... oh hang on this guy's not got that what esle has he... etc etc. you should know when looking at an 18 year old gerrard that there was all the attributes but he changed utterly too over time... Lucas.. thats an example of a guy who worked damn hard to turn it round in fairness.. sturrdige is greedy though... but you cannot deny the moment you see him you know he's got pace, he's got power, he's got touch, he's got the shot.

3. Ilori as an example out on loan.. why is he miss. 1. saw him in reserve action (breifly (was not impressed) 2. loanded out, open mind to granada, injured, brought back and loaned again, injured again... resutl = miss.

Alberto... why miss? cos he didn't look cut out one iota playing for us and when he wnet on loan he's not done much. Coates... same story out on loan after injury... he's a flop cos he's not done it.

How can any of them not be?

final point... if coutinho did get injured now and never came back would he be a hit/miss. well that is a fair question. To my mind he looked grat for 6 mnths then bad for 6 motnhs then great for 6 motnhs then bad again and now great again. Maybe he's a half a seaosn man.. i dunno but he's a sure fire hit IMO... i reckon by my 3 cirteria

1. will he improve us. i reckon right now he does and lucas did when he got back in so i reckon class might win out here. I still feel that he's quality so

2. he'd make his fee back.. right now i reckon he's going on for a 40mil price tag. given coming back someone will pay up 15-20mil if he's half fit. 8.5mil steal

3. has he delivered.... so far in spades. inconsistent yes but from jan to may each year he's been great for us IMO. dunno why its then or why but hopefully he'll put us in cl this year