I stand on the same side of the fence as Timbo when it comes to Rodgers and his position with us going forward but, with respect because I do agree with his posts on the whole, its really difficult not to hold Rodgers to account for at least some of our failings in the market.
Like Timbo I don't think he ever wanted Mario Balotelli and no amount of him saying "I have the final say on all transfers" would convince me otherwise. But the fact remains that he continues to say that, he has always insisted that he holds the deciding vote in the purchase of every player we've signed since the transfer committe was put in place.
Now I'm not expecting him to publicly wash his hands of any signing that he might not actually want. He's not going to rock the boat and put himself directly at odds with the rest of the committee. But when he is so continually effusive in his proclomations that no player is signed by Liverpool Football without his say-so then he's going to be held to account, particularly when some have got the knives out for him; when he has so much detractors out there waiting to pounce at any opportunity, any such proclomations are going to be the rope used to hang him.
The fact is that while people like myself might not believe that Rodgers wanted Balotelli, we really can't say with absolute certainty that he was strong-armed into signing him. How do we know for certain that, after reassurances from the player, his agent and others on the committee, that Rodgers didn't think: "you know what, maybe I'm the one who'll finally get through to Ballotelli"? Maybe Rodgers wasn't the one who suggested Balotelli but can we say unequivocally that he put up much of a protest when the player was offered?
The reality is we can't say anything with any real certainty, unless we were to sit in on those meetings where decisions are made then all we can really do is speculate and try to make an educated guess.
Therein lies the problem with the enormous clusterfuck that is our infamous transfer committee.
Who is suggesting the players? Who, ultimately, really has the final say? Do certain members possibly have more of the owners' ear than others? If the committee are all on the same page then why are we still arguing about "Rodgers signings" vs "committee signings"? Do we really need so many cooks in the kitchen? If the axe falls as a consequence of last summer then who carries the can and gets held publicly accountable?
Its an utter mess; there's no clarity, no consistent track record of success. We know who sits on the committee and what purpose its supposed to serve but otherwise there are too many questions. We've spent a ridiculous amount of money through this committee structure and we still argue over who is really signing the players. For me, thats indicative of a deeply flawed system.
Some blame Rodgers, others blame Ayre, some say we rely too heavily on the stats-oriented Edwards, other point the finger at the job done by scouts Fallows and Hunter. Its a clusterfuck of epic proportions where some just want to pin the blame on individuals while others see it as a collective failure.
And its a propaganda tool.
If you're firmly entrenched in the camp that wants Rodgers gone then he usually cops all the blame for the bad signings while "the committee" gets all the credit for the good ones. If you're still supporting Rodgers then the argument seems to be that he's been shafted by the committee and saddled with players he never wanted.
Both arguments might well contain an element of truth. Perhaps Rodgers has been the driving force behind some of our mistakes in the market or, conversely, maybe he has been told in some cases that he to make do with gambles on players like Ballotelli and make the best of it. But there remains far too much of a grey area when it comes to the committee for any of us to come to one single conclusion one way or the other.
In the past couple of days there have been rumours about "crisis meetings" set up to scrutinise the business done by the committee where, supposely, heads might roll. But then today the media is carrying quotes from Rodgers praising the committee and the work its done. That sums it up; one day we're hearing the committee and some of its members might well be in jeopardy, the next Rodgers is lauding it. Which is it? From the outside it looks a total shambles, at least in my view anyway. Does Rodgers really believe that its a set-up that's working and will bring in the players that he needs in the summer? Nearly £200m later, will FSG conclude that the committee is working in their end-of-season review or will they question where the value is to be found in the spending that they've sanctioned?
I back Rodgers but I honestly don't know if he'll be here next season. I definitely want him to be but I really don't believe that its a sure thing by any means. One thing I do know is that if he does come back from Boston with his job intact at the end of this month, he's going into the most important transfer window of his managerial career so far. If we start next season anywhere near as badly as this one there won't be any more chances to put things right, if we're adrift at Christmas and playing as badly as we are now then he's a dead man walking.
The stakes have never been higher for the committee, particularly the manager who sits on it. If it remains intact this summer we simply can't go into next season asking ourselves the same questions and having the same arguments that we have throughout this one.
The sky isn't falling on us just yet but the platform we began to build last season in order to reach for it again has begun to crumble. If the committee doesn't provide us with the tools to restart that forward momentum this summer then big changes are inevitable.
