Ok by request. As it stands the remaining committee members have survived. There has been much discussion surrounding who bought who, who does what and the possibility of a lack of transparency and accountability with the set up. Obviously the new manager may convince FSG to change things up but what do people think on here? Have the rest of the committee members upheld their brief? Should they all have the influence they seem to have in the make up of the team. Is anyone perfectly happy with its make up and if so, why? Should any be removed and again if so, why? Below is a link to a James Pearce article that briefly outlines what they each do and his view on what conflict there may have been. Post a text copy for direct reference if you wish. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/brendan-rodgers-liverpool-fc-transfer-10201451
Doesn't say if these were Brendan or committee selections Liverpool failed to get ambitious deals for the likes of Willian, Diego Costa, Yevhen Konoplyanka, Henrikh Mkhitarayan and Alexis Sanchez over the line.
'The Committee' Sounds like the next John Grisham book. Anyway, assuming the names on that link are split in that way, I think it's fair to assume that the committee are half decent talent scouts and just need a manager who knows how (and wants) to use them. I think a European manager would fair better with them and be more used to working in that way.
The workings of Liverpool’s transfer committee proved to be a source of friction throughout Brendan Rodgers’ Anfield reign. If Fenway Sports Group had stuck to their guns in the summer of 2012 it would never have existed. The plan was to appoint both a new manager and a director of football. However, Rodgers’ refusal to work under someone else convinced the owners to ditch that structure. The compromise was the creation of the committee. “I wanted to make sure that I would be in charge of football matters; that I would control the team,” Rodgers said. Over the past three-and-a-half years Rodgers always had the final say on transfers - no player was ever brought in against his will. However, he was regularly frustrated by a process which meant he had to convince others on the committee that a target met the club’s requirements and was worth pursuing. There were times when he was out-voted and blocked from signing his first pick. He wanted Ashley Williams, but got Mamadou Sakho. He wanted Ryan Bertrand, but got Alberto Moreno. On other occasions he was left to pick from a shortlist which didn’t include his initial targets. The best example of that was the summer of 2014 when he was given a choice between Mario Balotelli and Samuel Eto’o at the end of the window. Liverpool failed to get ambitious deals for the likes of Willian, Diego Costa, Yevhen Konoplyanka, Henrikh Mkhitarayan and Alexis Sanchez over the line. Rodgers was the driving force behind signing the likes of Fabio Borini, Joe Allen, Adam Lallana, Dejan Lovren, Rickie Lambert, Danny Ings, James Milner and Christian Benteke, while the other members of the committee championed the suitability of players such as Daniel Sturridge, Philippe Coutinho, Sakho, Emre Can, Moreno, Luis Alberto, Iago Aspas, Lazar Markovic, Divock Origi and Roberto Firmino. It was supposed to be a structure with checks and balances - ensuring too much power wasn’t placed in the hands of one man. Yet in reality there was simply a succession of compromises which left no-one truly satisfied amid rising tensions over the lack of a return on the club’s investment. The make-up of Liverpool FC’s transfer committee during Rodgers’ tenure.
Mike Gordon The 50-year-old American is the president of Fenway Sports Group and the most senior member of the committee. He has hold of the purse strings. Gordon has become an increasingly important figure at Anfield over the past three years but most Kopites wouldn’t know him if they bumped into him as he keeps a low profile. He is FSG’s second largest shareholder with around 12%. Only John W Henry (around 40%) holds a bigger stake. Gordon, who grew up in Milwaukee but moved to Boston as a student, enjoyed a hugely successful career in finance prior to getting involved with FSG in 2002 after they had bought the Boston Red Sox. please log in to view this image Mike Gordon of FSG For years he was a limited partner but that changed following FSG’s takeover of Liverpool in October 2010. He was installed on the club’s board of directors and since 2012, when he increased his stake in FSG, he has spent more and more of his time on this side of the Atlantic. “Mike is well known among professional investors as being one of the brightest financial minds in the country,” Henry told the Boston Globe back in March. “So he is involved in virtually all of our important financial discussions and decisions. He spent his career essentially buying businesses through choosing stocks. He understands present value, all of the financial issues that exist in an organization as wide and diverse as this is. “He is by far FSG America’s most knowledgeable person with regard to soccer and is involved on the football side daily in constant communication with the members of our football committee and our manager.” Ian Ayre The Liverpool chief executive is responsible for the day to day running of the club. He’s the key link between Anfield and Boston. Kirkdale-born Ayre is a lifelong Red who used to mind Evertonians’ cars on matchdays in order to get money to stand on the Kop and watch Bill Shankly’s men. After attending Litherland High School, he joined the Royal Navy before embarking on a business career in Asia. He was chief executive of Pace Systems, who were pioneers of the digital set top box. He returned to the UK and spent three years at Huddersfield Town as chief executive and chairman before working for Premium TV, a Virgin/NTL subsidiary. Ayre headed back to the Far East and was based in Malaysia as chief operating officer of Total Sports Asia. In 2007 he was appointed Liverpool’s commercial director after being head-hunted by Tom Hicks and George Gillett. He oversaw a massive 85% increase in revenues and was instrumental in securing the record-breaking shirt sponsorship deal with Standard Chartered. As the divisive and debt-ridden ownership of Hicks and Gillett saw Liverpool lurch into crisis, Ayre combined with Christian Purslow and Martin Broughton to outvote the American duo and help FSG buy the club after a High Court battle in 2010. After Purslow stepped down, Ayre was promoted by the new owners to the role of managing director in 2011 and a year ago he was made chief executive. He’s instrumental in transfer negotiations and, long with Gordon, he’s also responsible for contract talks with players and agents. “What we believe, and we continue to follow, is you need many people involved in the process,” Ayre said. “That doesn’t mean somebody else is picking the team for Brendan but Brendan needs to set out with his team of people which positions we want to fill and what the key targets would be for that. “He has a team of people that go out and do an inordinate amount of analysis work to establish who are the best players in that position. Despite what people think and read, it’s not a whole bunch of guys sitting behind a computer working out who we should buy.”
Brendan Rodgers When Liverpool were looking for a manager to succeed Kenny Dalglish in May 2012, FSG were also preparing to appoint a new director of football to replace Damien Comolli, who had been sacked the previous month. However, their plans changed after holding talks with Swansea City boss Rodgers. The Northern Irishman agreed to take over but he wanted full control. As a result FSG’s discussions with Louis van Gaal went no further. “For me coming in, I was always going to work with a team of people, rather than a director of football,” Rodgers said. “I always think the manager is the technical director. He is the man who oversees the football development of the club, and I believe you should take on that responsibility when you are manager. “I work best whenever I have clear communication lines with owners. My only failure – if you can call it that – was when I had something in between at Reading, which was when I had a director of football. “One of my strengths is to communicate upwards, and if I can’t do that, or if the message is diluted, then I don’t work the same, and for me it was important that when I came in at Liverpool I didn’t want those lines blocked.” With the director of football model ditched, the transfer committee was formed. “The principle idea when I first came in was that like any manager you will have the first call on a player and the last call,” Rodgers told the ECHO in 2014. “That’s the call on whether he’s good enough to continue to look at and try to organise a deal and the last call to say yes or no. There is a big part that goes on in between. In modern football you need to trust other people to do the work. “We will never bring in a player here who the manager doesn’t want in. That’s a great credit to the owners and the other people at the club.” Dave Fallows Sometimes referred to as the head of recruitment, Fallows’ official job title is director of scouting. He joined Liverpool in 2012 after being lured away from Manchester City where he was first team scouting and recruitment co-ordinator. The former Bolton Wanderers performance analyst accepted the opportunity to be part of the new scouting set-up under Rodgers. During his time at Manchester City he was key to building the club’s international scouting infrastructure using state-of-the-art technology. What is his role? “My role is primarily to co-ordinate all aspects of our scouting department, which includes liaising with scouts, fixture planning, managing the constant stream of reports coming in and effectively linking everything together,” Fallows explained back in 2010. “The traditional role of a scout, where they went to a match and kept all the knowledge in their head rarely exists in modern day scouting structures.” At Liverpool, Fallows has a worldwide network of scouts reporting back to him. When Rodgers says that the Reds need strengthening in a particular position, Fallows is heavily involved in the drawing up of a shortlist of candidates who fit what the manager is looking for. Barry Hunter Liverpool’s chief scout is a 46-year-old former Northern Ireland international defender. Born in Coleraine, he played for Crusaders in his homeland before signing for Wrexham in 1993. Reading bought him for £400,000 three years later and it was with the Royals where he got to know Rodgers. Hunter moved into management with Rushden & Diamonds in 2004 but he couldn’t prevent them from suffering relegation to the Conference and left the club two years later. He had a spell as assistant manager at Swindon Town before embarking on a career in scouting. Hunter joined Blackburn Rovers as a senior scout in 2006 and did a similar job for Norwich City before moving to Manchester City in 2008. He was City’s chief scout for Italy, Switzerland and Russia. Hunter was recruited by Liverpool as their new chief scout in 2012 at the same time as they snapped up Fallows. At Liverpool he follows up recommendations from regional scouts and draws up detailed reports on players who the Reds are tracking.
Michael Edwards Liverpool’s current director of technical performance is the least well known face on the transfer committee but Edwards’ influence has increased since he was brought to Anfield during Damien Comolli’s reign as director of football. He had previously worked alongside Comolli at Tottenham. Edwards graduated from the University of Sheffield with a degree in business management and informatics before putting his IT knowledge to use in the world of football. He was Portsmouth’s head of performance analysis from 2003 to 2009 before moving to London to carry out the same role for Spurs. Comolli was suitably impressed with his work that he offered him a job with Liverpool in 2011. Initially, he was head of analytics – poring over the mass of data Premier League clubs gather on players in every match and providing reports. Once Comolli left in 2012, Edwards took on greater responsibility and was made head of performance and analysis. He’s well regarded by FSG and since June 2013 he’s been director of technical performance. The nod to his expertise tallies with John W Henry’s admiration for the ‘Moneyball’ philosophy where statistical analysis is used to try to find value in the transfer market. Edwards assesses data from leagues across the world and is involved in the drawing up of scouting assignments.
I agree with Two Girls. It's not perfect and it can certainly be improved but what harmed us was having a manager who simply wasn't interested in working with them. As mentioned before, Rodgers wanted his own targets which were at odds with the committees. The system cannot function like that. You either give one party full control and autonomy - not the mesh that we've seen. We do have some good scouts - we signed Sturridge, Coutinho, Can, Moreno, Sakho for around £55-60m which will form the spine of the time. Then you also have Ilori and Origi - Markovic for £20m is steep but he's highly regarded. They have bought some really talented players over the past 2-3 years. What we need is a manager who will work with them. There needs to be cohesion - this is not the 90's anymore. Most clubs operate like this where the 'manager' is a First Team Coach. They have no say in recruitment other than specifying a position that needs to be addressed and then evaluating the targets presented to him. Football is a massive, complex game - why should we expect the manager to do everything? Even training and coaching is split into different areas and there will probably be a coach that looks after each individual area. Klopp isn't a tactical master - his assistant is the one who handles that side. Recruitment is no different - let specialists handle that side. Ultimately, this is what let Rodgers's down - it seemed to me that he was trying to do everything. He was pressured to bring in a defensive coach but decided against it. He wanted specific targets but when he was given someone else, he was reluctant to work with them. The cases of Sakho and Moreno are the biggest examples. Rodgers's eye for talent is shocking IMO - to think that if we gave him full control, we would have ended up with Williams, Bertrand, and Dempsey instead of Sakho, Moreno and Sturridge. Every big club has a committee - we should be no different.
Since the committee is apparently responsible for every good buy we made why change a ****ing thing? Just get the new manager to play the committee picks in position
I doubt if Shankly and Paisley had a Transfer Committee, they scouted the players and if the liked them they signed and look at the teams they produced, Transfer Committee is a load of rubbish, also all these Coaches with Files and Instructions, football is a simple game complicated by Coaches.
I agree with that post but Bertrand would have been a great buy and is better than Moreno. I have high hopes that Moreno will improve though.
They were buying players from a smaller football world, at the time clubs bought inside Britain; extremely rare to have a European and almost impossible to have a South American or further. Also transfers were far more old school wheeler dealer, friendly contacts and old chums to help seal deals. btw they did have scouts who went off to look and report back.
You can put blame on both sides really... but it seems it was destined to fail from the start. You can't have a committee who are going down different paths and disagreeing with each other so often. We saw Spurs fail when a DOF came in picked a load of players the manager didn't want and it all went to pot. No problem having a committee (didn't it used to just be called a scouting system?) but the relationship between manager and other members needs to be very close. If they are, there is no reason they cant work. The committee obviously have a "type" of player they are targeting in young players with potential where as I guess Rodgers wanted some more experience and "ready players". Now I don't disagree with Rodgers, I think we did need those "ready players" but it seems to me (and this is just a theory) that all our scouting abroad was done on young players with potential (Sakho/Cout/Marko/Moreno/Can/Ilori) so when Rodgers says he wanted ready made players there was a shortage of options abroad so he/they had to go with what they knew... and that wa sperm players that they've seen week in week out (Lovren/Lallana/Lambert/Benteke/Clyne). If the manager has the same ideas as the rest and they all work together they can target the type of players the manager actually works. Not everyone is going to work but it'll be far more successful. Most managers are stubborn and especially British managers who are used to growing up and having full control and not used to the "European way" of being a coach and having others do that side of the game. I think Rodgers obviously wanted full control but wasn't going to get it but knew we were too good a opportunity to turn down so compromised just to get the job but was never fully behind the model. Hopefully the new manager will have a better relationship with the rest of the staff and they can work as one group and target the right players.
They also still got scout reports. Difference was the scouts weren't employed by the club, they worked off commission.
I suppose after reading all that we would need to know what the short lists were. I mean lets take the argument as fact that the failing players were forced through by Rodgers. I still don't know how he managed that with so many bad players if the data all these other committee guys collected on them showed they were poor choices. I mean when each was in discussion why did all these experts not have files sitting there telling Brendan they were ****?. I mean they flat out said no to some of his suggestions why not the others if it was so obvious they were poor players with price tags too high? Now if these players that BR "picked" were part of the short lists brought to him by the scout orientated committee members, whether they preferred somebody else on the short list or not they had put these names down as acceptable. Then either way the financial guys agreed to buy them at the prices quoted. If alternatively they were somehow not on the lists at all and Rodgers just brought his own names to the table why did the rest of the committee agree to buy them when they had supposedly forced through purchase against BR's wishes on other occasions? (The players he apparently refused to play). It just doesn't square with me I'm afraid. No matter which way you look at it these other committee members where either actively complicit in bad buys, negligent in due dillegence of BR's suggestion of bad buys or incompetent that they didn't question or refuse obvious bad choices when they'd shown at times the power and will to do so before. They do not fill me with confidence. Gordon: his football knowledge might be better than the rest of FSG but is it enough to make yes or no decisions on players? Other than its his property and he can do what he likes. Ayre: doesn't seem to close big deals for known high quality players. Tough job but not one convinced in that time? Edwards/Hunter/Fallows: other than apparently updating our IT systems why are they on the committee if their data isn't convincing enough to make BR look clearly wrong to the finance guys? Or if BR's players were in the short lists; Why; if they were obvious poor choices? If it's down to obvious coaching issues who allowed Brendan to bring his own similarly inexperienced backroom team in the first place. And who thought this year's replacements were a big improvement? It surely can't be that schizophrenic that they all caved to Brendan one day and stood up to him the next but if it is, how weak does that make the rest of them? These are the questions rolling around my head. It's not an attempt to absolve Rodgers in any way just fears that the people surrounding the new manager won't be good enough when it matters most: In his early days at the club before he can assert his personality and system..important days even though we'll all be patient with him personally.
I'm not sure how refusing to work under a DoF but having to work with [and to all intents and purposes it looks very much like 'under'] a committee, can be called a 'compromise'. Something that could have turned out great put aside for something that was never going to work It wasn't a compromise, it was a flawed strategy.
