Liverpool's future determined by transfer policy over next 72 hours

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...as-much-as-Merseyside-derby-with-Everton.html

Liverpool head into a pivotal period chasing the top four spot with a thin squad after a series of transfer failures in the summer and having missed out on another talented potential signing.

With 72 hours left of the January transfer window, one wonders if Liverpool owner John W Henry is already preparing his open letter to the supporters.
You’ll recall how in September 2012 Henry felt compelled to offer an explanation for why Brendan Rodgers would have only one striker for the first six months of his reign.

Liverpool had failed to sign Fulham’s Clint Dempsey but still allowed Andy Carroll to go on loan to West Ham.

“We will buy prudently and cleverly and never again waste resources on inflated transfer fees and unrealistic wages,” Henry explained.

“We have no fear of spending and competing with the very best but we will not overpay for players.”

Looking back, Henry would be entitled to applaud himself. Dempsey lasted a year at Spurs, Carroll's done nothing but increase medical bills at West Ham and Liverpool eventually signed Daniel Sturridge to create one of the most prolific strike partnerships in their history.

A year from now, the reservations about the value of Mohamed Salah may prove equally justified. Again, that buzz phrase ‘won’t overpay’ was used to explain why Liverpool did not value the Egyptian as highly as Chelsea. We also heard it last summer when Willian ended up at Stamford Bridge.

It seems we are navigating similar territory at the end of every transfer window, the focus on an Anfield transfer policy which is idealistic, honourable and rational but does not seem compatible with the grubby, dishonourable and utterly irrational world of the football transfer.

Just because you think you have a deal with an agent or a chief executive, it doesn’t disqualify him from calling Chelsea, Manchester City or Spurs, quoting the figures and asking if they can do better. There is nothing a wealthier rival loves more than irritating one of those upstarts who reckon they can steal their top four place. That is business. That's the game. If Liverpool could do the same, they would, as they always used to in their heyday whenever they heard a coveted player was available and could be joining Manchester United or Everton. Liverpool would exploit their clout, step in and say: “Thanks very much for doing all the groundwork, we’ll take it from here.”

Salah is a stranger case than Willian because, relatively speaking for top four clubs, the fees appear modest. If you’re not going to be good enough at £16 million, you’re not going to be much use at £11m or even £1m, either, so why bid at all? Clubs never overpay for good players, only poor ones. No-one cares about the the price when class is involved because if they're young enough you can always sell at a profit.

Many of Liverpool’s worst deals were the cheapest. The likes of Philippe Degen, Andriy Voronin and a series of ‘mid-priced’ recruits who knew after six months they’d spend the duration of their Anfield careers being paid handsomely for giving the occasional interview declaring they would fight on to get over their terrible start.
In contrast, most of Liverpool’s finest recent signings were expensive. Xabi Alonso, Javier Mascherano, Fernando Torres and Luis Suarez cost a combined £80 million and can all be called bargains.

Carroll – the most costly dud - would have ended on the bench or on loan whether he was £35,000 or £35 million because he was not good enough. Obviously the price made it much worse but if Carroll had been the English Drogba he’d be still at the club with a £60 million exit clause in his recently signed new deal.

The man who pushed for that transfer lost his job and one can’t escape the conclusion the psychological impact of this is guiding today’s cautious approach. There seems to be a lack of confidence in the judgement of expensive players. Liverpool behave like a club wary of making mistakes, knowing they can’t afford any.

Like any club, they get very tetchy when their ‘transfer policy’ is discussed. They insist it is no different to others, a group of experts – ‘the committee’ – ensuring checks and balances are in place to prevent lousy deals. At the same time, we know Rodgers is a member of the committee, not its leader, and that distinction can’t be ignored when establishing responsibility. There are only Liverpool signings, not Rodgers ones.

The principle is worthy and, given Liverpool’s recent history in affording too much power in managers, understandable. But just because the notion of a committee has merit, it doesn’t mean the individuals who form it should not be questioned when they’re not delivering the targets, especially as the manager is the one who will take most flak from the supporters. As has been stated previously, lack of Champions League football is a major factor in the breakdown of some deals but the question of how the committee calculates market value has never been properly answered.

“We’re not just sitting at computers playing Football Manager,” was a somewhat flippant response not so long ago but we do live in an age where, when it comes to scouting, the geek has inherited the earth.

Daniel Sturridge and Philippe Coutinho were excellent signings whose value increased within a month of their recruitment a year ago. Since then, there has been nothing comparable. Simon Mignolet made an excellent start and recent wobbles aside looks a decent capture, but last summer’s transfer activity was broadly speaking mediocre (at best).

If Liverpool finish in the top four, it will be as a consequence of the outfield players Rodgers already had. Iago Aspas, Luis Alberto and Tiago Ilori have been rarely seen. Mamadou Sakho, who cost £18 million, has not established himself, spending more time in treatment. Kolo Toure is erratic and certainly not the natural replacement for Jamie Carragher as billed. The less said about the loan deals, the better, and a club of Liverpool’s stature should not be begging Chelsea for players for a season anyway. It is beneath them.

Liverpool headed into this transfer window desperate for a defender and midfielder. They spent weeks trying to sign a winger. Last week, Rodgers revealed Glen Johnson has been playing with an injury for a few months and could have broken down at any moment. How could Liverpool not have prepared for his absence?
Tuesday night’s Merseyside derby heralds the start of the latest pivotal period for those chasing the top four and – partly due to injuries - Liverpool’s squad has never looked so thin. That’s also because the squad players have not proved able enough stand-ins.

The next 72 hours will go some way to determining how equipped Liverpool will be to remain in the top four. What happens off the pitch will have as much influence as what we see at Anfield against Everton.

 

If we lose tonight and sign no one there will be a a huge cloud over the supporters that hasn't been there of late - that will be sad.

 

That pretty much articulates what I've been trying to say on the transfer thread.

 

A well written piece and pretty accurate I'd say. Highly frustrating January.

 

"If you’re not going to be good enough at £16 million, you’re not going to be much use at £11m or even £1m, either, so why bid at all? Clubs never overpay for good players, only poor ones. No-one cares about the the price when class is involved because if they're young enough you can always sell at a profit."

"a club of Liverpool’s stature should not be begging Chelsea for players for a season anyway. It is beneath them."
Some very true statements. I have really not been impressed by our transfer committee at all, even in the summer they were not up to scratch

 

ah guys... if we over pay you'd complain.

seriously.

the supposition AGAIN is lfc are only looking at one player... a winger who decided to go to chelsea and however desperate or not we are for a defender and CM... we are somehow not looking.

Well we'll see cos i'd rather hear form the horses mouth AND I'd rather wait frankly for a player like sturridge in the summer if thats whats going on than end up with a donkey like de jong who people seem to think is up to it without much evidence.... on loan

 

No I wouldn't. Arsenal overpaid for Ozil, United overpaid for Mata, Chelsea overpay for everyone. They are still class players that would undoubtedly improve our team. We only seem to overpay for crap

 

do you think 42mil for ozil is overpaying?

i think bale at 85mil is gorss over paying.

42mil for ozil who is frankly a top top and top player is not over paying and honestly mata at 37mil is not really over paying either... top top player. Cheslea however do over pay a lot. 30mil for willian was not overpaying and neither was 17 or so for hazard... for example.

Salah i am easy on. if he's 16mil its not that big a price but if we value him at 11 or 10 or 8 then why pay 50% over the value to secure a squad player

Again budget of 20-25mil to go between 2 or 3 player targets.. you buy slaha at 15mil or whatever (ie commit on the balance sheet over 3 years) then you don't get the other player

I bascially would not have bought any of the targets like alberto, ilori or aspas... but i'd only get one player in then... right or wrong? I dunno I think i'd be right but then you see the injuries.

Its more complex than useless transfer policy or personel.

 

After a very dodgy window that brought in Aspas (bad), Illori & Alberto (gambles), Toure (old) and Sakho (injury-prone) - you'd think the club would like to go for at least one solid outfielder this window to undo the bad taste.

One crisp signing, though not at the cost of an Ozil or a Mata, could have vitalising effects invigorating the whole squad.

 

The point is, that if we've done our job correctly, in this case on Salah and we'd paid £20m but he turned out to be magic, then we'd of not overpaid in the first place. Value is commensurate with the players success which obviously is not always easy to predict and is a bit of a gamble!!! However, look at the qulaity a team like Chelsea or City buy and it stands up every time....the higher the qulaity, the higher the price, the better chance the signing will succeed. Not always but more.....It's like we want a sure fire success with every deal but ironically this level of risk averseness forces us into smaller deals with a much higher risk rate (Aspas, Alberto, Ilori....Borini, Assaidi, et al)

 

Sahko could yet prove to be a great buy. He's injured not injury prone IMHO - get him in a settled defence and I think he'll be great for us.


Still can't believe we lost out on Dempsey tho huh?

 

In top team economy now:

£30 mill today is the equivalent of £20 mill 3 or 4 years ago. (a solid proven performer close to the highest level)
£40 mill is the new £30 mill. (a really good quality player anyone would like)

Then inflation occurs more rapidly...

£70 mill is the new £40 mill. (a truly exceptional player, one of a handful of the very very best)
£80 mill means you're an idiot for paying that much.


£20 mill is the new £15 mill. (a good player- who is perhaps just a tier or two below the very best).

Anything below £20mill and you're looking at players who arn't top team material, have a certain risk value- or haven't yet reached their peak... you're speculating on them becoming better- you see something in them that indicates they will improve.


Mata and Ozil's prices seem really high- but that's the way the market is still trending. They are close to correct based on today's football economy.

 

that is fine..

if you've or rodgers or whomever the genuine belief in the guy that he's just that f'n good then fine. but that not the case... what is he? a squad player or a player to allow coutinho to develop in midfield???

coutinho maybe looked a risk as we signed an unknown, looks a bargain. sturridge never looked anything but a good price. he now looks positively cheap

comparing us to city and cheslea though... please lets not. even compare to arsenal if you want but god not city and cheslea who pay unlimited wages and fees multiple times and have half the world out on loan too boot.

again force major.. 25mil to spend and you need 3 players... do you try your best to get 2 of them or spend it on one..

in the end apsas as a direct choice. i would never have bought him. same for assiadi who was an afterthought punt almost., borini was a direct choice and so btw was allen.. extremely high fees for two players rodgers trusted and wanted... alberto and ilori and punts on the future i debate as well but those are choices

why do we give the transfer team because when they go buy rodgers choices?

Me? i'd have bought sahko, i'd have bought eriksen and i'd have then looked for someone on a punt.. mingolet and toure were fine too.

 

I still believe we're doing a knee-jerk to the overspending of the Commoli/Dalglish era.

(even though as I've pointed out... if we sold Suarez for £70mill and Henderson for £20-£30mill in the summer, not that I want to sell them, then the Comoli/Dalglish era signings would turn out to be a profit for us in the transfer market... it evened out overall).



We're trying too hard to land a bargain. I think Henry saw what an awesome deal we got on Sturridge and Coutinho in the winter last year and think we can always do that.

As a result we get Aspas, Alberto, et al. Players who arn't the right grade... not every cheap signing goes through metamorphosis to turn into a Sturridge.

 

probably right.

i'd add anything under 10mil and either you are signing a dog, a kid or a player 6months for contract left. As in (aspas, ilorli or inlar or whomever)

so again. 20-25mil to spend.. no europe, working very hard to increase revenues. what we all was fans would like is for fsg to say suddenly actually here 100mil and get us CL and make that fund 50mil per year as a result.

I think all us fans would agree on that but its not our place to go demand someone sitck 100mil in from nowhere when FPP seem to be in effect even at chavland!

 

maybe.... but then we sunk 17mil into sahko so we need to see the evidence. right now we can either say willian, costa, mkhitaryan were us bidding way too low Or we can say its evidence we are willing to spend big.

unitl we buy a really big player for 25mil then it can be approached from either side and we'll endless debate cos neither side can be wrong

 

I think Sakho is the kind of player we should be signing. I've been overall impressed with him. The injury of course is a worry though... I would like to see him getting more games.

 

You can't define a market by excluding the biggest parts or fastest growing parts of it!!! Unfortunately, these teams (and a few on the continent) have set the market, they define it and everyone, including us, have to operate in it! We can't throw our toys out of the pram and refuse to play without any consequence.

I empathise with your comments but, like it or not, these clubs are an intrinsic part of the market that we have to play in.

 

So how do we identify those who will?
Plenty of people on here didn't want either Sturridge or Coutinho. We didn't know what we were going to get. The same goes for Aspas, Assaidi, etc. We won some and we lost some.
I think we have to face up to the harsh reality that if we identify a top-notch player there's a strong likelihood that the money-bags teams are going to step in and nick him, even if only to stop us (or other contenders) from getting him.
It's a big problem, and I can't see an obvious solution to it, tbh.

 

KKK, there is a wise saying heeded by people around the world for centuries: Buy cheaply, pay dearly.

In any case, I think we'd be supportive of some moneyball transfers at a ratio of 3:1 of gamble to solid, but not when you

1) go on a streak of gambles uninterrupted by any solid transfer
2) overpay 7 million and 11 millon for players without a single full season under their belt (Illori & Borini - at least Alberto, 7 mil, had played a full season in the second division)