So effectively we now have a DoF, Views? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ttee-not-Brendan-Rodgers-claims-Ian-Ayre.html Will this make us slower and less effective in the market?
It is a panel to separate the talent from the crap and the bargains from the epic wastes of money. In the long run it should make us stronger. Maybe it will stop us signing Ashley Williams.
When BR was appointed he (and Ayre) said he would be forming a transfer committee rather than having a DoF. This seems like recycled news.
What happens when Rodgers say he wants player 'X' as his first choice & the 'committee' don't agree with him & have a different suggestion - who wins that argument? & what's the outcome? This model will only work if the 'committee' are merely advisory, if they've got the power of veto, then this won't work imo.
Possibly, I've not read the link (lazy you see). But it was always going to take time to set something up, just surprised its taken a year
The only problem its easier to spread the blame. Like with Downing and Carrol still not glear who decided on those signings whether it was Kenny or Comoli it seems to have been more pushed to Comoli.
We get some one who hasnt played for Swansea in the past. Obviously the scenario you described is a concern. But the counter to that is 'what if Rodgers wants to sign some one who is a bit risky but has a large fee and the player is unsuccessful'.
Then he carries the can for it, as it was his call. The counter to that & using your Swansea theme, what happens if (as is reported) Rodgers wants a CB this summer & has set his heart on Williams - but the 'committee' come up with a different suggestion that they feel offers either better quality or better value for money (or both)? Do the committee win? or does Rodgers get his first choice? If it's the former then that won't end well & if it's the latter it makes the entire process meaningless.
Of course its clear, it was both of them! DC find players that he thought were good enough, Kenny said yes or no. Quite simple really.
that would be deemed high risk would it not? As we know too well, one manager could severely **** up in one transfer window and we'd be paying for it for years!
All transfers are high risk, at the top end of the market. All you can do is look to minimise that risk. You can do this by using statistical evidence & extensive scouting (which is still subjective opinion like) to ensure that you're not spending £M's on a 'whim' or a you tube clip. The issue is about control & who ultimately has it, if a manager hasn't got the ultimate say then he's merely a coach. If he does have the ultimate say, then the committee could end up not recommending any of the players that end up coming in.
Your scenario assumes that the 'committee' will always be in conflict with Rodgers and presumes that Rodgers will always be at variance with any purchases that he did not originate. If the committee function works properly then it be be united in it's decisions before any player approach is even made.
That's a real 'land of milk & honey' world that you live in Dave. Opinions on players are always ultimately subjective, the idea that a committee would all come to the same conclusions as the manager about a list of potential signings is a nonsense. There will by the nature of it be conflicts of opinion & someone will ultimately have to have to make the call, the question is, who?
Its not about blaming, its about making sure it doesnt happen. You make it sound like wasting £15m and underachieving with transfers is ok as long as some one can be blamed for it.
You can't ensure that it doesn't happen though, this is football. As I said earlier all you can do is look to try & minimise the risk. It happens to the best of them - you could draw up a list of players that were duffers for all of the top managers in the game, without exception they've all bought crap for big money. Ultimately someone has to take responsibility for it, that's called 'life'.
But in recent years the majority of our transfer business has been negative. The more experts we have, the more effective we can be.
Of course individual signings can be high risk but I was talking more about the long term aspirations of the club. We can't afford another summer like a couple of years ago and if one man is in-charge (especially if they are self-confident / arrogant) then it is more likely to happen. I think it is better to have a policy that says two or three people need to agree to a transfer so long as the right people are involved and it is a quick process too.
