Topic: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy

[BobbyDavro]

I've only seen the film but the success was based around getting dirt cheap players in who had been overlooked, or cast aside, by the richer teams. In addition, they were players who had specific desirable traits...like regularly getting to base even if they never scored any home runs.

I don't see that philosophy behind any of the signings bar Bellamy.

In fact I don't see any philosophy behind our signings.

For me it's always simple: buy better players than you've got and the people you're trying o overtake have got or are getting.
If you can twist that by getting cheap players who do a specific job then great.
We've spent £70m on:
Carroll, unproven and a downgrade on the player he replaced.
Henderson, unproven and a downgrade for the near future.
Downing, who was probably the right type of player in that we needed a winger, but was very costly.

It was always a risky strategy. There was a safer less risky approach in either spending less, or buying more proven, higher quality.

[subroc]

If we're going to do that, we'll also have to drop the attitude that, as soon as a player doesn't want to be here, they can go to whatever club will have him. The top level of "names", especially those who play further forward than the back 5, will want CL football as a condition, or at least the realistic prospect of it. If we don't have it or we don't get it, then even if they've already signed, they won't be happy, and there will be noises about wanting out. If we then do what we've done with Aquilani, which is to let go of him for a stupidly low price (we couldn't afford Cattermole for what we'll get for him), then we'll have let go of talent, and we won't even have got a fair price with which to replace them. Let's say we sign Hazard for 40m, however we manage to convince him. We don't manage to get a secure a CL spot in his first season, and he's unhappy about the failure. Do we let him go for 10m because he "doesn't want to be here"?

I never agreed witht his strange attitude that `if they dont want to be here, we dont want them here either'. We have to face the fact that Liverpool FC ain't what it used to be. Playes will come in seeing us as merely a stepping stone. Fine, as long as they perform as expected or even better than expected while they are here, becuse they are also just stepping stones as far as we are concerned. We onyl sell them if it suits us to sell them. Unles the deal makes sense to us financially or it enables us to get an even better player, then you are staying bucky, and I do not care if it is home sickness, hives, allergy to the Mersey and Beatles music, or the weather. If they go on strike, we sue them for breach of contract and we get damages for moneytary loss that will wipe them out financially. If they stay but play badly, then stick them in the reserves till they come to their senses.

Torres-gate should have taught us that players and even managers come and go but the club is what we support.

[subroc]

I've only seen the film but the success was based around getting dirt cheap players in who had been overlooked, or cast aside, by the richer teams. In addition, they were players who had specific desirable traits...like regularly getting to base even if they never scored any home runs.

I don't see that philosophy behind any of the signings bar Bellamy.

In fact I don't see any philosophy behind our signings.For me it's always simple: buy better players than you've got and the people you're trying o overtake have got or are getting.
If you can twist that by getting cheap players who do a specific job then great.
We've spent £70m on:
Carroll, unproven and a downgrade on the player he replaced.
Henderson, unproven and a downgrade for the near future.
Downing, who was probably the right type of player in that we needed a winger, but was very costly.

It was always a risky strategy. There was a safer less risky approach in either spending less, or buying more proven, higher quality.

Exactly. For Adam, even his own previous team's fans were pointing out his deficiencies before we signed him. All of those players - including Downing who has not shown anything but very ordinary pace for a winger - lacked great pace which is almost a prerequisite for excellence in the Premiership unless you have an extraoridinary degree of skill - which none of these players had. Look at the Untid game - all the players who troubled us the most did so because of their pace. Valencia and that young striker they had. the only reason why Carrick and Scholes dominate dMF was because our MF failed to press them.

[Dr Manhattan]

To this day I still don't understand how something used in baseball can translate just as well to football. There are far too many variables which exist in this sport compared to one man standing at home plate with a bat facing a pitcher.

I've genuinely never understood why it's been accepted as something which would work, and signings such as Andy Carroll for £35m are the complete opposite of this anyway. I can see why it would work in baseball, and I think that's been proven, but in football it's a load of nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

[Camarero25]

Judging by the film, we should be going on a 19 game winning streak any time now.

[soberphobia]

To this day I still don't understand how something used in baseball can translate just as well to football. There are far too many variables which exist in this sport compared to one man standing at home plate with a bat facing a pitcher.

I've genuinely never understood why it's been accepted as something which would work, and signings such as Andy Carroll for £35m are the complete opposite of this anyway. I can see why it would work in baseball, and I think that's been proven, but in football it's a load of nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

I tend to agree with this. The variables are greater and Baseball doesn't have style of play to bring to the equation either, or if a manager likes a 4231 or target man forward for his ideal. Rafa was as much in love with a 4231 as it is possible for a manager to be and picked players for his ideal formation. Same goes for the special one and his love of 433. Both managers are adept to change when need be but there is no doubting the style they like. SAF would unlikely pick a player as defensive as Mascherano or the like as a midfielder but that player was immense with a different manager and structure. Anyone who has watched SAF's style of play  used would of known that a player like Valencia would thrive at United because he suits the managers style.

You can't figure that out through soccer stats it is something obvious to football people. Downing had great stats before coming here but it's not really his poor form that has disturbed the fans it is his lack of endeavour. Where does that show in soccernomics? KK knows the style of player and game plan he wants. Sometimes he will make the wrong call on an individual but as we have seen in the past if a good manager is given time, funds and patience then success is inevitable.

[Sangria]

To this day I still don't understand how something used in baseball can translate just as well to football. There are far too many variables which exist in this sport compared to one man standing at home plate with a bat facing a pitcher.

I've genuinely never understood why it's been accepted as something which would work, and signings such as Andy Carroll for £35m are the complete opposite of this anyway. I can see why it would work in baseball, and I think that's been proven, but in football it's a load of nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

There are some rough guidelines which we could use.

1. Keep what we have unless the player can't even compete for a squad place, or we can upgrade.
Based on this, we could have kept Aquilani as Adam isn't a clear upgrade (or in view any upgrade at all), but the example I particularly had in mind was Insua.
2. Certain leagues are better at certain kinds of players. If we need someone to fill a slot, look for a squad player from that league.
Look to Spain for technical players. Look to Britain for hard CBs, hard strikers, direct FBs, tough CMs, orthodox wingers.
3. If we need a traditionally English player for a limited role, look in the lower leagues.
I cited Joey Barton as a midfield biter and Grant Holt as a target man, both of which would have been relatively cheap from Championship clubs (Barton wouldn't have been more than 4m at most, while Holt would have been achievable for 1-2m).

Going by these guidelines, our current problem areas would probably have been fillable for 10m in total with scarcely worse results than now, and with greater flexibility for reshaping should it not work out.

[Baz Smythe]

There are some rough guidelines which we could use.

1. Keep what we have unless the player can't even compete for a squad place, or we can upgrade.
Based on this, we could have kept Aquilani as Adam isn't a clear upgrade (or in view any upgrade at all), but the example I particularly had in mind was Insua.
2. Certain leagues are better at certain kinds of players. If we need someone to fill a slot, look for a squad player from that league.
Look to Spain for technical players. Look to Britain for hard CBs, hard strikers, direct FBs, tough CMs, orthodox wingers.
3. If we need a traditionally English player for a limited role, look in the lower leagues.
I cited Joey Barton as a midfield biter and Grant Holt as a target man, both of which would have been relatively cheap from Championship clubs (Barton wouldn't have been more than 4m at most, while Holt would have been achievable for 1-2m).

Going by these guidelines, our current problem areas would probably have been fillable for 10m in total with scarcely worse results than now, and with greater flexibility for reshaping should it not work out.

Absolutely spot on and a clear indication of where we've been going wrong thats brought us from challenging fro Prem to 6th

Alonso>Aquilani
Torres>Carroll
Meireles>current Henderson
Old Kuyt>current Kuyt
Attacking Gerrard>Central Gerrard
Nobody>Downing

Only actual upgrades in past 2-3 years have been Johnson Skrtel/Agger partnership and Enrique thats it. 

[Eeyore]

The big assumption for me is that FSG actually want the same things that the fans want. As fans we want to win trophies and to compete at the top table both domestically and in Europe. That is what success means to us. Is that really what drives FSG or is to grow the brand, to increase revenue streams and to make a return on their backers investment.

Whilst it is easier to grow a brand if the team is successful it isn't compulsory. Arsenal are the perfect example of a Club that makes huge sums of money for it's owners without winning trophies. Abramovich and Mansoor have changed the face of English football and have shown that even investing ridiculous sums of money doesn't guarantee success.

JW Henry's whole business model involves the aversion of risk, given that why bother trying to compete with the Abramovich's and the Mansoor's in the transfer market when you can keep the natives happy and keep the cash rolling into the till by offering long term deals and ambassadorial roles to the likes of Gerrard and Carragher.

In terms of improving the squad, improving the average age of the squad and building for a brighter future then it's the older players on big money who should be moved on and should be replaced by the players who are going to make a difference in the future. When we ruled at home and abroad it was survival of the fittest as soon as players went past their best or someone else offered more that was it they were gone. There was no sentiment or harking back to what the player offered three or four years ago, it was what the player was going to offer for the next three or four years that counted. It was what the player offered on the pitch that counted not what they brought into the coffers.

The next transfer window for me will be the acid test to see whether FSG aspirations are the same as ours. We need to stop buying players because they are a good risk and make soccernomic sense and start bringing in the players who will take us on to the next level. I don't want to  support a team that sells shirts I want to support a team that wins the biggest prizes and that will take far more than risk aversion and keeping the fans happy.

[Vulmea]

JW Henry's whole business model involves the aversion of risk, given that why bother trying to compete with the Abramovich's and the Mansoor's in the transfer market when you can keep the natives happy and keep the cash rolling into the till by offering long term deals and ambassadorial roles to the likes of Gerrard and Carragher.

Think his business model is to reduce risk not avoid it - its not just about playing percentages as the Carrol, Henderson, Downing and Suarez deals all show - in all of those we've been accused of overpaying for potential - thats risk taking isn't it.

[RedRush]

The big assumption for me is that FSG actually want the same things that the fans want. As fans we want to win trophies and to compete at the top table both domestically and in Europe. That is what success means to us. Is that really what drives FSG or is to grow the brand, to increase revenue streams and to make a return on their backers investment.

Al, when FSG took over, my fears were exactly that. But at that time anyone was better than G&H, so I wasn't complaining.
 
I'm not complaining about them now either. Selling Torres and Babel gave them 60m odd to buy Suarez and Carroll for 60m odd. No real spending by them there.
 
But in the last summer transfer window, they did put up big money - 20m for Downing, 16m for Hendo, 8m for Adam, 6m for Enrique. They were not the ones that chose these players. They signed the cheques. There's no way we can tell whether they did it to please the fans, or because the players are a good risk and make soccernomic sense or whether they believed these players would take us on to the next level. There really is no way of telling at all.
 
The only thing we can tell, is that they gave Comolli and Dalglish a budget big enough to make a leap of some sort. It remains to be seen this next window whether we get a similar budget. If we don't, then we may have wasted our 'windfall' budget, something that Rafa can only dream of.
 
This is the thing that I'm still feeling extremely and increasingly exasperated about because with hostile bosses and one hand tied behind his back, Rafa out-moneyballed the Moneyballers (Bean, Comolli, et al), with Liverpool leapfrogging the mightiest and the biggest spenders in Europe to become the no 1 team in Europe, and challenging for domestic honors in a hostile league against an incumbent at the height of its powers counting within its squad the likes of Ronaldo, Tevez, and Rooney. You only have to note that they are each now the respective best player in Real Madrid, Man City and Man United to see what Rafa was up against in the Man United of 2008/2009, and he did it on a budget of 14m per year having to sell a lot and to buy a lot just to compete with the very best and yet some myopic fans and myopic legends within our club are completely unable to look beyond his 'bad buys' which is a natural result of the limitations placed upon him. That he also brought us world class players like Alonso, Reina, Torres, Mascherano, Lucas, Agger, etc in the process seems lost to them.
 
We still had a very good squad when we booted Hodgson, with Reina, Johnson, Carra, Agger, Skrtel, Aurelio, Kelly, Lucas, Gerrard, Aquilani, Meireles, Spearing, Kuyt, Maxi, Torres, Babel, and Suarez was already a target of the club even before Hodgson arrived. Looking at our squad now, bar Bellamy, I'm not certain if we've made the necessary 'leapfrogging' in quality with the windfall money that we were given.
 
A big part of me is in conflict with the `if they dont want to be here, we dont want them here either' attitude, and if we did what Harry did with Modric, we would have kept very good and very useful players indeed, at least better than the ones brought in. Instead we practically sold Aquilani for peanuts because 'In his position is a certain Steven Gerrard' right from the horses mouth, and we were sold the idea that Meireles wanted to leave at the last minute, which contradicts with the fact that we were bringing in so many midfielders into the team even before that. A Torres/Suarez partnership would have been mouthwatering for me, as is an Aquilani/Suarez partnership or an Aquilani/Lucas/Gerrard partnership, but sadly we never got to see it for varying reasons. We could have gotten a great partnership upfront, or a great partnership in the middle in addition to the great partnership in Agger/Skrtel brought about only because of an injury to Carra.
 
Instead, we seem to have bought indifferent individuals (bar Bellamy of course) rather than vital hardworking cogs to a machine with the money we were given. It remains to be seen whether the players we've bought so far will come good, but I think the best we can hope for them is that they put in a shift and become very useful to us as squad players while we buy the ones that will allow us to leapfrog over our competition in the next window. Otherwise, we may have wasted whatever windfall budget FSG was willing to give.
 
Can we really blame FSG if they don't spend big the next window, bearing in mind how we spent it in the last big window?

[steveeastend]

Al, when FSG took over, my fears were exactly that. But at that time anyone was better than G&H, so I wasn't complaining.
 
I'm not complaining about them now either. Selling Torres and Babel gave them 60m odd to buy Suarez and Carroll for 60m odd. No real spending by them there.
 
But in the last summer transfer window, they did put up big money - 20m for Downing, 16m for Hendo, 8m for Adam, 6m for Enrique. They were not the ones that chose these players. They signed the cheques. There's no way we can tell whether they did it to please the fans, or because the players are a good risk and make soccernomic sense or whether they believed these players would take us on to the next level. There really is no way of telling at all.
 
The only thing we can tell, is that they gave Comolli and Dalglish a budget big enough to make a leap of some sort. It remains to be seen this next window whether we get a similar budget. If we don't, then we may have wasted our 'windfall' budget, something that Rafa can only dream of.
 
This is the thing that I'm still feeling extremely and increasingly exasperated about because with one hand tied behind his back, Rafa out-moneyballed the Moneyballers (Bean, Comolli, et al), with Liverpool leapfrogging the mightiest and the biggest spenders in Europe to become the no 1 team in Europe, and challenging for domestic honors in a hostile league against an incumbent at the height of its powers counting within its squad the likes of Ronaldo, Tevez, and Rooney. You only have to note that they are each now the respective best player in Real Madrid, Man City and Man United to see what Rafa was up against in the Man United of 2008/2009, and he did it on a budget of 14m per year having to sell a lot and to buy a lot just to compete with the very best and yet some myopic fans and myopic legends within our club are completely unable to look beyond his 'bad buys' which is a natural result of the limitations placed upon him. That he also brought us world class players like Alonso, Reina, Torres, Mascherano, Lucas, Agger, etc in the process seems lost to them.
 
We still had a very good squad when we booted Hodgson, with Reina, Johnson, Carra, Agger, Skrtel, Aurelio, Kelly, Lucas, Gerrard, Aquilani, Meireles, Spearing, Kuyt, Maxi, Torres, Babel, and Suarez was already a target of the club even before Hodgson arrived. Looking at our squad now, bar Bellamy, I'm not certain if we've made the necessary 'leapfrogging' in quality with the windfall money that we were given.
 
A big part of me is in conflict with the `if they dont want to be here, we dont want them here either' attitude, and if we did what Harry did with Modric, we would have kept very good and very useful players indeed, at least better than the ones brought in. Instead we practically sold Aquilani for peanuts because 'In his position is a certain Steven Gerrard' right from the horses mouth, and we were sold the idea that Meireles wanted to leave at the last minute, which contradicts with the fact that we were bringing in so many midfielders into the team even before that. A Torres/Suarez partnership would have been mouthwatering for me, as is an Aquilani/Suarez partnership or an Aquilani/Lucas/Gerrard partnership, but sadly we never got to see it for varying reasons. We could have gotten a great partnership upfront, or a great partnership in the middle in addition to the great partnership in Agger/Skrtel brought about only because of an injury to Carra.
 
Instead, we seem to have bought indifferent individuals (bar Bellamy of course) rather than vital hardworking cogs to a machine with the money we were given. It remains to be seen whether the players we've bought so far will come good, but I think the best we can hope for them is that they put in a shift and become very useful to us as squad players while we buy the ones that will allow us to leapfrog over our competition in the next window. Otherwise, we may have wasted whatever windfall budget FSG was willing to give.
 
Can we really blame FSG if they don't spend big the next window, bearing in mind how we spent it in the last big window?

Great post.

Yes, we can blame them if they won´t spend.

This whole moneyball issue is used from some on here as an excuse for some poor decisions in transfers recentely. It´s nothing else than a big distraction in here as neither the owners, nor Comolli have been using this argument as general transfer policy strategy as far as I know.

We have to do better in our tranfers, that´s all. If won´t we will stay stuck somewhere between 4th and 7th.

[RedRush]

Great post.

Yes, we can blame them if they won´t spend.

Haha I see what you did there. What I meant was whether they spend big or not. It's a huge worry for me that we spent nothing in January, particularly when we seem to have holes everywhere.

[smicer07]

Haha I see what you did there. What I meant was whether they spend big or not. It's a huge worry for me that we spent nothing in January, particularly when we seem to have holes everywhere.

Everywhere? Really?

[steveeastend]

Haha I see what you did there. What I meant was whether they spend big or not. It's a huge worry for me that we spent nothing in January, particularly when we seem to have holes everywhere.

I think that Henry learned some tough lessons in how european football works in general last year, he pointed it out by himself. He is a clever business man and I am not totaly convinced him being commited to football completely.

I think we will ship out the likes of Aurelio, Maxi and Kuyt and with the money buy some new players, maybe with an additional 20m budget.

We have to make up for the flaws of our transfers in summer and replace the ones we will be shipping out, which I can see defintely happen. So we have quite a challange right in front of us, a very crucial one.

[steveeastend]

Everywhere? Really?

Our defense is alright. The midfield area is a distaster at the moment. Gerrard, Maxi, Kuyt, Bellamy all over 30+, Shelvey, Henderson, Spearing too young which leaves us with an injured Lucas, Adam and Dowing in their physical prime ready to carry the game week in week out.

So there is Adam, who adopted pretty good recently and Lucas who is injured. Downing simply isn´t able to carry the game.

In attack we have two strikers. TWO.

I think we need at least 4 top players to bring back some balance.

[Eeyore]

Think his business model is to reduce risk not avoid it - its not just about playing percentages as the Carrol, Henderson, Downing and Suarez deals all show - in all of those we've been accused of overpaying for potential - thats risk taking isn't it.

Not really the major risk is paying huge wages for someone and them not being successful. The big problem is unless you can somehow spot the real top talent before everyone else then the best players usually demand big wages. We have bought second or third tier players who because they were largely English were overpriced but have offset the risk by paying them comparability low wages.

A perfect example is Liverpool paying £35m for Andy Carroll and City paying the same for Kun Aguero whilst City have paid the £250k a week wages that you would associate with one of the most expensive fees ever paid for a player we have offset the risk by only paying Carroll a third to a quarter of Aguero's salary.

The little that FSG has spent in real terms on player acquisitions has been more than offset by the reduction in the wage bill. The biggest problem for Liverpool is that your wage bill is usually a very accurate indicator of where you will finish in the table. You get the odd exception with the odd Club overperforming or underperforming but usually the wages table and the League table are almost identical.

It's easy to be critical of some of the Club's purchases in the summer but to judge it properly you really need to know how much the pressure to reduce the wage bill reduced the quality of the player we were able to target. It is very easy to cut costs and much safer to reduce costs when your income is being cut but sometimes you need to speculate to accumulate. Does Henry and Fenways model allow for a little speculation or will they keep to their word and not deficit spend.

Maybe the old adage that if you spend peanuts you get monkeys is at work.

Fenway are being praised for saying very similar things to Hicks and Gillet who were continually telling us that we didn't need spending we needed smarter spending. Isn't that pretty similar to what Fenway are telling us that they won't compete at the top end of the wage scale but will spend what money we have more wisely. That is something that may work in a Sport that you know deeply and which lends itself to statistics but will it work in a Sport they know nothing about and a Sport that is a statistical analysts nightmare.

We have a Top manager a good squad and an exceptional fanbase what we need for me is someone in charge with the balls to push the boat out and bring in that extra bit of quality that we desperately need to make the next step.

[RedRush]

Everywhere? Really?

Sorry, I'll explain.

In terms of a top four team, maybe not everywhere. But in terms of building a team to leapfrog our rivals and regaining our perch, well, maybe more than one each in defence, midfield and attack, which is essentially everywhere.

My particular concerns are:
Agger - we have a great player which we hope is past his injuries.
Carra - great servant to the club, but near or may well be past his sell by date.
Coates - Still raw and unproven but a great potential.
Enrique - looks very good individually, but offers little in the form of an end product (think Aurelio with his goals and assists and setpieces, think Riise with his goals and assists), and takes too long to release the ball. Johnson is a better left wingback than Enrique in my humble opinion.
Spearing - good player which I like, but not even close to replacing Lucas. We really need someone better here if we are to play Stevie G and Adam together in front of this position.
Stevie G - Our best player but he's aging and has recurring strange injuries. And we're still waiting for him to return to his best. Rockets from outside the box are now things of the past. The last was three years ago if I'm not wrong. Heck, CM isn't even his best position as Rafa proved.
Adam - He's a great squad player to have, but hardly first 11. He's our Scottish Alonso, but hardly an equivalent of the Spanish one. Too individualistic to make the midfield tick.
Henderson - is he first team or is he a squad player? Is he a CM or is he an RM? For me he is one for the future and plays in the middle.
Downing - Very skillful player but hardly offering anything to the team at all and is a defensive liability.
Kuyt - Great player, one of my favorites but unfortunately over 30.
Maxi - also aging unfortunately.
Carroll - I've always backed him to come good, but I still think he's too raw and the problem is that he is pretty much a square peg in a round hole. Not fast enough. Beast of a player if we play to his strengths though, if he puts in a shift. Who is his replacement if he gets injured?
Bellamy - Aging.
Suarez - gone in the summer. Just kidding.

Anyway, the above are the holes I'm talking about that we could attend to if FSG is willing to spend, to make a serious attempt at 4th place so that we can get better players in next year. I'm sure you could do a similar list of any other teams out there in the league, particularly Man United's but I'm really talking about 'leapfrogging' here, and my 'perceived' weakness in our team here.

[steveeastend]

It's easy to be critical of some of the Club's purchases in the summer but to judge it properly you really need to know how much the pressure to reduce the wage bill reduced the quality of the player we were able to target. It is very easy to cut costs and much safer to reduce costs when your income is being cut but sometimes you need to speculate to accumulate.

You are right, we don´t know that. But it isn´t always black and white, especially when listening to some of our people in charge who always pointed out that it wasn´t really necessary to sell or avoid to buy a player at all costs.

I think for this year only, the year where we all hoped to get back to CL football we just made some decisions which didn´t turn out the way the people in charge where expecting. 

[Eeyore]

You are right, we don´t know that. But it isn´t always black and white, especially when listening to some of our people in charge who always pointed out that it wasn´t really necessary to sell or avoid to buy a player at all costs.

I think for this year only, the year where we all hoped to get back to CL football we just made some decisions which didn´t turn out the way the people in charge where expecting. 

I think the biggest problem with this summers spending was that we played it safe and looked for player with Premiership experience something else that has the unpleasant whiff of risk aversion. We played far too safe we went for players with premiership experience and with good stats our motto seemed to be going for players who created chances instead of going out and buying real quality.

We had this crazy idea of buying players like Downing, Henderson and Adam players who created chances without realising that a large part of the reason why they created those chances was because the teams that they played for give them a hell of a lot of the ball and all three were pretty much there teams main provider.

Sticking the three of them in the same team was always a recipe for disaster. All three players whilst having good individual seasons stat wise where main men of teams that did pretty badly. Blackpool got relegated and Houllier and Bruce are no longer manager of their respective Clubs. We went for players who thrived on quantity instead of quality and surprise surprise we have had exactly the same pattern this season. We have created an abundance of half chances but scored very few goals.

The top players thrive on quality not quantity how many times do we see the teams above us fighting for the title have six or seven shots on target and score three or four goals whilst we have ten or twelve chances and are lucky to convert any of them. The simple truth is that clinical chance creation and clinical finishing invariably correspond to big wages, the best things in life don't come cheap.

Another example is the CEO Ian Ayre according to FSG after an extensive search they found the right man was already at the Club which is brilliant if it's true. The problem is that after the headhunters had done their search it was clear that the salary that FSG was offering didn't have a hope in hell of attracting a big hitter. Instead of paying the big bucks and attracting the right candidate FSG went for the cheap inhouse option and the results were abundantly clear during the handling of the Suarez situation.

United, City and Chelsea have all agreed to pay players well in excess of £200k a week since FSG arrived whilst we are looking to pay new recruits a quarter of that. If anyone thinks that is the way to pay catchup then for me they are just being delusional. Whilst the big three are looking to recruit the best talent on the planet FSG are looking to keep the fans onside by offering their favourites ambassadorial roles.

Fenway need to show in the next window that their ambitions match us otherwise we are going to slip further and further behind. 

[Dmode101]

i think the owners or comolli hadn't done the fans a service by not resolving the financial outlay issue of the wings position for 2 or 3 transfer windows already. we only paid an inflated over valued 20mil on downing the most and thats a regression. kuyt was an abomination by the previous two owners in that he was a crap striker turned crap right winger. he had no pace or touch and he was misused. IF he was used as a lone upfront striker he would have proliferated. but the issue is not kuyt but why did the owners not resolved the right wing issue and instead brought in belamy on the cheap as a make shift 4-3-3. yes, bellamy was a revelation but the intention was wrong as we need a 23-28 top winger thats in his prime and not some "potential" downing at 28 yrs old and overpaid by comolli which is in itself scandalous as it could be that kenny might have wanted him only as a squad player thinking he would have only cost 12mil. what goes on behind the scenes we may never know. However, seeing the facts is that downing was valued wrongly at 20 mil and that is the fault of comolli transfer dealings.

In fact, kenny might have wanted downing as a backup winger. And if comolli delay the transfer till the last minute and offered 20mil, it might have sabotage kenny key transfer for a lavazzi or even hazard, in that he thought comolli might have saved the rest for the top talents.

I think we can see that comolli position as a higher ranking management might not have been a good idea and that he is not for the fans but more as a finance controller to the owners than for the sake of the team squad ability.

there is always a budget but we will never know. An outlay for about 100mil means nothing if we on the other hand got rid of technically superior or equal players in their prime like aqua, miereles and torres and replace them with cheaper potentials. that to the owners may be a good profit for them and the club BUT definitely not for the fans!!!

I am furious since the transfer window that some of the fans or probably club PR pretending to be moles in the forum and spread crap logic that the owners did well and help save the club by selling players at their prime. thats bullshit. yes the club needs the dynamic of young, middle age and senior players. but if you systematically sell your prime players and replace them with younger and cheaper ones or older and freer ones. then what we have is a team of very old and cheap or very young and not so expensive to expensive players. yes our defensive players have a very stable age dynamic with glen, skrtl and agger at 28 and enrique at 26. Bu when it comes to the crucial attacking players we systematically try to fuck off the expensive prime players in torres, miereles and aquilani.

lets see our attacking players and those that fit the current value in the bracket of (expensive and in their prime) only suarez!!!

attacking types
adam 27 (cheap prime), maxi 31 (cheap old), henderson 22(expensive young),  kuyt 32(cheap old),  downing 28(cheap prime),  suarez 25(expensive prime),  stevie 32(free old),  carroll 23(expensive young)

the brackets indicate their true market value based on performance and their age and not their last transfer value as comolli have overpaid some of them. 

how can only suarez hold the candle of this dynamic? out of so many attackers we have only one prime and expensive player in our books. and we let 3 of them go in one summer!!! that to me is going to the way of arsenal. all young and cheap players ready to be sold once they reach their prime.

so are we being misled all this while and are actually a selling club in reality? like what is happening to arsenal? it seems like it.

[B.Red]

I concur with those who say it's a load of bollocks. You don't have to look far for examples which contradict each of these rules. The first rule is the worst. New managers tend to waste money so limit their contribution. Not only is that false (Rafa's first transfer window was excellent) but it wasn't applied in reality by FSG.

Look at the basic facts. FSG brought Comolli in to head up their sporting strategy. He hasn't been responsible for a signing yet who meets the criteria set out in that article. Selling Torres is possibly the most 'Moneyball' thing done so far. The fact that Andy Carroll is now being shoehorned into the strategy shows how Moneyball is all things to all people. It has come to mean 'having a clue what you are doing' and even then I'm not sure it is being applied in its entirety.

[Vulmea]

Al I'm not sure what you are asking for here?

you can't just say take risks pay a new recruit 200K a week - thats not taking a risk its holding a loaded gun to your head.

you pay one player 200K what does every other player at the club expect?

we don't have 10m to blow on wages a year for a player who may not work out -and we certainly dont have the extra 50 mil to upgrade everybody else's wages.

Not doing that isn't a sign of risk aversion - its a sign of sanity. If we did that, it   is exactly what should start alarm bells ringing because it would be unsustainable - it would be gambling our future for their gain.

the clubs you've quoted are losing money hand over fist - 2 because they dont care and can afford to and one because their owners are syphoning off money to pay for shopping arcades.

none of us know the strategy being used at our club only the results

for me its much more likely that we targetted positions - said this is the type of player we need - created a shortlist and then picked the best ones that allowed us to fill all the holes for a set budget - if we'd have taken a risk on somebody like Hazard in all probability we'd have been short elsewhere - CM, left back wherever.

if you are talking about taking a risk by gambling the clubs future I think thats bang out of order. Chasing the finances of City and Chelsea would be a disaster it could easily be for Chelsea come the summer or whenever the ganster decides he's had enough

In the summer I expect the same type of budget to be made available - 20 to 30 m with any money from sales but with the total wages to be roughly the same as they are now - that should not be as bad as it sounds because the likes of Poulsen, Cole, Aquilani even Pacheco et al who are adding nothing should  finally be off the bill meaning we have the chance to add some genuine quality - whether we can attract them is another matter.

I also dont think trying to encourage our youth players is just a callous economic exercise - thats where we are speculating to accumulate - Teixeira, Sterling, Ibe, Sinclair, they are all decent investments but the philopsophy is also to get them young, teach them our way, hopefully generate some loyalty and see the benefit for 10 years - very easy to be cynical about it but it also makes perfect sense

 

[lionel_messias]

"2 or 3 quality players"
Every transfer window, every season in recent memory has brought the same mantra - we just need 2 or 3 quality players to have a squad ready to challenge again.  Every season, the desired quality level across the squad falls short of what's needed. 

Agree with this. I think it is more the case that rather than being 2 or 3 players away, what you actually need for success is two or three transfer windows of positive signings. Or continual investment, like you said, when we had the likes of Masch, Alonso and Torres that would have been the time to buy two or three more players-serious quality. But it is also time, wait for the Bales of this world to develop. Sign the Christiano Ronaldos of this world when they are 19 and wait for them to develop-and to be able to wait you have to have a well stocked first team to keep you going.

The idea now would be to keep investing. Buy a centre forward of high quality (not cheap), invest in defensive midfield (where we are weak), and probably invest in two attacking midfielder/forwards (one a wide player).

I don't know what moneyball says about moving players on who aren't performing though..

[MolbyLovesGravlax]

Youth purchases don't have to be justified with FFP. So it is a very smart idea to invest there. We can spend millions there that don't need to be balanced by income.

[Dmode101]

Al I'm not sure what you are asking for here?

you can't just say take risks pay a new recruit 200K a week - thats not taking a risk its holding a loaded gun to your head.

you pay one player 200K what does every other player at the club expect?

we don't have 10m to blow on wages a year for a player who may not work out -and we certainly dont have the extra 50 mil to upgrade everybody else's wages.

Not doing that isn't a sign of risk aversion - its a sign of sanity. If we did that, it   is exactly what should start alarm bells ringing because it would be unsustainable - it would be gambling our future for their gain.

the clubs you've quoted are losing money hand over fist - 2 because they dont care and can afford to and one because their owners are syphoning off money to pay for shopping arcades.

none of us know the strategy being used at our club only the results

for me its much more likely that we targetted positions - said this is the type of player we need - created a shortlist and then picked the best ones that allowed us to fill all the holes for a set budget - if we'd have taken a risk on somebody like Hazard in all probability we'd have been short elsewhere - CM, left back wherever.

if you are talking about taking a risk by gambling the clubs future I think thats bang out of order. Chasing the finances of City and Chelsea would be a disaster it could easily be for Chelsea come the summer or whenever the ganster decides he's had enough

In the summer I expect the same type of budget to be made available - 20 to 30 m with any money from sales but with the total wages to be roughly the same as they are now - that should not be as bad as it sounds because the likes of Poulsen, Cole, Aquilani even Pacheco et al who are adding nothing should  finally be off the bill meaning we have the chance to add some genuine quality - whether we can attract them is another matter.

I also dont think trying to encourage our youth players is just a callous economic exercise - thats where we are speculating to accumulate - Teixeira, Sterling, Ibe, Sinclair, they are all decent investments but the philopsophy is also to get them young, teach them our way, hopefully generate some loyalty and see the benefit for 10 years - very easy to be cynical about it but it also makes perfect sense

seriously, are you a true fan. have you actually seen the pre season? add nothing. even if aquilani wanted to leave, that doesnt mean aquilani is crap. doesnt mean you mix the semantics of cole and poulsen and a dash of aquilani it means shit attackers. the reason why aquilani is making so much noises in the summer is because everyone knows he's a great AM. and that he is winding the contract down so that the italian teams can buy him on the cheap. who's fault? its the owners. kenny declared he wanted him to stay. IF he left I can only assume its the owners not wanting to pay him more or wanting to get rid for more profit.

[DanA]

seriously, are you a true fan. have you actually seen the pre season? add nothing. even if aquilani wanted to leave, that doesnt mean aquilani is crap. doesnt mean you mix the semantics of cole and poulsen and a dash of aquilani it means shit attackers. the reason why aquilani is making so much noises in the summer is because everyone knows he's a great AM. and that he is winding the contract down so that the italian teams can buy him on the cheap. who's fault? its the owners. kenny declared he wanted him to stay. IF he left I can only assume its the owners not wanting to pay him more or wanting to get rid for more profit.

Last I checked Aquilani played for AC Milan. Given that's the case he really is offering us nothing if we are paying even a part of his wages. At best we are running down his contract.

[Vulmea]

Red Rush wrote

My particular concerns are:
Agger - we have a great player which we hope is past his injuries.

This isn't a hole then?

Carra - great servant to the club, but near or may well be past his sell by date.

An upgrade - but what about Wilson, Wisdom and Sama?

Coates - Still raw and unproven but a great potential.
 
So is this a hole?

Enrique - looks very good individually, but offers little in the form of an end product (think Aurelio with his goals and assists and setpieces, think Riise with his goals and assists), and takes too long to release the ball. Johnson is a better left wingback than Enrique in my humble opinion.

So are you asking for  anew left back? What about Robinson?

Spearing - good player which I like, but not even close to replacing Lucas. We really need someone better here if we are to play Stevie G and Adam together in front of this position.

So Lucas is first choice, you want another player of that quality to sit on the bench?

Stevie G - Our best player but he's aging and has recurring strange injuries. And we're still waiting for him to return to his best. Rockets from outside the box are now things of the past. The last was three years ago if I'm not wrong. Heck, CM isn't even his best position as Rafa proved.

So is this a hole?

Adam - He's a great squad player to have, but hardly first 11. He's our Scottish Alonso, but hardly an equivalent of the Spanish one. Too individualistic to make the midfield tick.

So he's a squad player - you want a first teamer - isn't that Gerrard or Henderson? How many first team players and squad players are we going to have? Where does Shelvey feature?

Henderson - is he first team or is he a squad player? Is he a CM or is he an RM? For me he is one for the future and plays in the middle.

No point in having players for the future who dont play - so he's in the squad? Again not a gap then.
 
Downing - Very skillful player but hardly offering anything to the team at all and is a defensive liability.

So he needs to be replaced or made part of the squad?

Kuyt - Great player, one of my favorites but unfortunately over 30.

what happens over 20 - euthanasia?

Maxi - also aging unfortunately.

Younger than Stevie G though.

Carroll - I've always backed him to come good, but I still think he's too raw and the problem is that he is pretty much a square peg in a round hole. Not fast enough. Beast of a player if we play to his strengths though, if he puts in a shift. Who is his replacement if he gets injured?

That would be Kuyt, Bellamy or Suarez and play a different way?

Bellamy - Aging.

Everybody is aging - but is he as good as he's ever been? Would you replace him in the summer?

Assuming we need a squad of 22 players,  how many players are we actually short? I'd say none - we've 22 quality players. No holes anywhere in my opinion - no holes at all really. The question is how many of those players do we need to upgrade.

Should we be looking for 22 players of similar quality or 17/18 of first team quality with young players and 'squad' players making up the rest of the squad?

[Dmode101]

Last I checked Aquilani played for AC Milan. Given that's the case he really is offering us nothing if we are paying even a part of his wages. At best we are running down his contract.

so we can't bring back a loaned player if we wanted to?

[artanis]

While signings we made make sense in light of the posted article and moneyball, we are not doing as well as we should. While we are in the final of the Carling Cup, and will likely win it only a CL place will attract talent to us.
we are on pace to finish on 59 points almost the same as last year. 70 pts is a minimum required for the 4th spot.
We are, after 25 games, 4 points ahead of Norwich.
Unless we get 31 or more points from the next 14 games, then whatever policy we have in place has failed.

[Vulmea]

so we can't bring back a loaned player if we wanted to?

it depends on the deal but generally no if  its a season long loan.

especially so if the lads promised his girlfriend they'll be staying in Italy, as I understand it she put the nail in the coffin of Aquilani's LFC career back in the summer

[Zlen]

Basically women have more of a say then our management

[Sangria]

it depends on the deal but generally no if  its a season long loan.

especially so if the lads promised his girlfriend they'll be staying in Italy, as I understand it she put the nail in the coffin of Aquilani's LFC career back in the summer

What's his girlfriend got to do with a Liverpool contract?

[Dmode101]

it depends on the deal but generally no if  its a season long loan.

especially so if the lads promised his girlfriend they'll be staying in Italy, as I understand it she put the nail in the coffin of Aquilani's LFC career back in the summer

ridiculously demanding women. I can totally empathize. 

[Rouge]

Red Rush wrote

My particular concerns are:
Agger - we have a great player which we hope is past his injuries.

This isn't a hole then?

Carra - great servant to the club, but near or may well be past his sell by date.

An upgrade - but what about Wilson, Wisdom and Sama?

Coates - Still raw and unproven but a great potential.
 
So is this a hole?

Enrique - looks very good individually, but offers little in the form of an end product (think Aurelio with his goals and assists and setpieces, think Riise with his goals and assists), and takes too long to release the ball. Johnson is a better left wingback than Enrique in my humble opinion.

So are you asking for  anew left back? What about Robinson?

Spearing - good player which I like, but not even close to replacing Lucas. We really need someone better here if we are to play Stevie G and Adam together in front of this position.

So Lucas is first choice, you want another player of that quality to sit on the bench?

Stevie G - Our best player but he's aging and has recurring strange injuries. And we're still waiting for him to return to his best. Rockets from outside the box are now things of the past. The last was three years ago if I'm not wrong. Heck, CM isn't even his best position as Rafa proved.

So is this a hole?

Adam - He's a great squad player to have, but hardly first 11. He's our Scottish Alonso, but hardly an equivalent of the Spanish one. Too individualistic to make the midfield tick.

So he's a squad player - you want a first teamer - isn't that Gerrard or Henderson? How many first team players and squad players are we going to have? Where does Shelvey feature?

Henderson - is he first team or is he a squad player? Is he a CM or is he an RM? For me he is one for the future and plays in the middle.

No point in having players for the future who dont play - so he's in the squad? Again not a gap then.
 
Downing - Very skillful player but hardly offering anything to the team at all and is a defensive liability.

So he needs to be replaced or made part of the squad?

Kuyt - Great player, one of my favorites but unfortunately over 30.

what happens over 20 - euthanasia?

Maxi - also aging unfortunately.

Younger than Stevie G though.

Carroll - I've always backed him to come good, but I still think he's too raw and the problem is that he is pretty much a square peg in a round hole. Not fast enough. Beast of a player if we play to his strengths though, if he puts in a shift. Who is his replacement if he gets injured?

That would be Kuyt, Bellamy or Suarez and play a different way?

Bellamy - Aging.

Everybody is aging - but is he as good as he's ever been? Would you replace him in the summer?

Assuming we need a squad of 22 players,  how many players are we actually short? I'd say none - we've 22 quality players. No holes anywhere in my opinion - no holes at all really. The question is how many of those players do we need to upgrade.

Should we be looking for 22 players of similar quality or 17/18 of first team quality with young players and 'squad' players making up the rest of the squad?

I find it hard anyway can argue our squad is better then it was at the end of G+H era, it plainly isn't.  The management need to take some responsibility and we as fans should not try and sugar over this fact.
It is a crime we spent what effectively was our highest transfer budget since the premier league started on several players who actually weakened our first 11.
I  am willing to give MB a fair try - after all as someone already mentioned Rafa's early signings n his first year where MB signings (Garcia Alonso. Masch), but only when we focus on players from all leagues and thus a larger talent pool

[MolbyLovesGravlax]

Really?  Is it up to age 18?

I've seen conflicting info, but it clearly says "The FFP does not include expenditure on the youth set-up." So you buy someone young and slot them into the 1st team squad they have to be justified, but you put down a bunch of 500,000 rising to whatever for talented kids like Sterling they will not have to be.

[Vulmea]

While signings we made make sense in light of the posted article and moneyball, we are not doing as well as we should. While we are in the final of the Carling Cup, and will likely win it only a CL place will attract talent to us.
we are on pace to finish on 59 points almost the same as last year. 70 pts is a minimum required for the 4th spot.
We are, after 25 games, 4 points ahead of Norwich.
Unless we get 31 or more points from the next 14 games, then whatever policy we have in place has failed.

very odd post - we are also 4 points off 4th - 

are any of the other teams chasing 4th on target for 70 points? Maths isn't me best subject, infact I dont have  a best subject they all tie for last place

[Vulmea]

What's his girlfriend got to do with a Liverpool contract?

as I understand it when Aquialni was told he could not be guaranteed a first team place he discussed his options with his beloved and they decided they'd be better off in Italy - the magnanimous LFC agreed and so a loan deal was eventually agreed despite it not really being in our best interests as it just see's the lads sale value diminish.

[Sangria]

as I understand it when Aquialni was told he could not be guaranteed a first team place he discussed his options with his beloved and they decided they'd be better off in Italy - the magnanimous LFC agreed and so a loan deal was eventually agreed despite it not really being in our best interests as it just see's the lads sale value diminish.

I don't see the point in magnanimity, especially based in the assumption that any player who doesn't want to be here can go. Purslow was an idiot when he said Benitez wouldn't be allowed to sign any players from Liverpool. This precluded the possibility of a bidding war between Inter and Barcelona, and thus reduced the amount of money we'd get for Mascherano (who we actually sold for less than we bought him for). Precluding the possibility of Aquilani staying by saying anyone who wants out can go, is on the same level of stupidity as Purslow's announcement on Mascherano, and for the same reason. Aquilani still had 3 years with us, and if we insisted on him staying unless we got a good offer, Milan would be forced to put up a good offer if they wanted him. Instead, we said he could go to whoever will have him, and Milan took him for a price that we wouldn't get Cattermole for.

[Eeyore]

Al I'm not sure what you are asking for here?

you can't just say take risks pay a new recruit 200K a week - thats not taking a risk its holding a loaded gun to your head.

you pay one player 200K what does every other player at the club expect?

we don't have 10m to blow on wages a year for a player who may not work out -and we certainly dont have the extra 50 mil to upgrade everybody else's wages.

Not doing that isn't a sign of risk aversion - its a sign of sanity. If we did that, it   is exactly what should start alarm bells ringing because it would be unsustainable - it would be gambling our future for their gain.

the clubs you've quoted are losing money hand over fist - 2 because they dont care and can afford to and one because their owners are syphoning off money to pay for shopping arcades.

none of us know the strategy being used at our club only the results

for me its much more likely that we targetted positions - said this is the type of player we need - created a shortlist and then picked the best ones that allowed us to fill all the holes for a set budget - if we'd have taken a risk on somebody like Hazard in all probability we'd have been short elsewhere - CM, left back wherever.

if you are talking about taking a risk by gambling the clubs future I think thats bang out of order. Chasing the finances of City and Chelsea would be a disaster it could easily be for Chelsea come the summer or whenever the ganster decides he's had enough

In the summer I expect the same type of budget to be made available - 20 to 30 m with any money from sales but with the total wages to be roughly the same as they are now - that should not be as bad as it sounds because the likes of Poulsen, Cole, Aquilani even Pacheco et al who are adding nothing should  finally be off the bill meaning we have the chance to add some genuine quality - whether we can attract them is another matter.

I also dont think trying to encourage our youth players is just a callous economic exercise - thats where we are speculating to accumulate - Teixeira, Sterling, Ibe, Sinclair, they are all decent investments but the philopsophy is also to get them young, teach them our way, hopefully generate some loyalty and see the benefit for 10 years - very easy to be cynical about it but it also makes perfect sense

 

When United spent double what we were spending in the mid eighties on transfers and paid players the biggest wages in the Country were they gambling with the clubs future or did they do it knowing full well that they had the potential fan base to make it work. That is where we are now we are at a cross roads we either invest in our future both in terms of a new stadium and quality recruitments on the pitch or we try and get back to the top on the cheap.

Fenway bought the Club at well under it's market value because of the circumstances and for me have plenty of room to invest and still get a return. The problem is when you buy £60k a week footballers when your competitors are buying £150k- 250k a week players, when you talk about refurbing Anfield instead of building a stadium the equal of the Emirates or old Trafford and when you shift a commercial director into the CEO seat you are pretty much condemning yourself to mediocrity.

Fenway have got their hands on one of the Worlds greatest sporting institutions with an almost limitless potential and the sooner they realise it and start treating it as such instead of making do and mend the better. Players smell the stench of a Club making do at a hundred paces and if we want to keep hold of our best players and start improving the squad we need to start competing at the top end of the market.

It's all very well recruiting young talent but if you are not prepared to pay them the going rate when they prove themselves then you just become another Arsenal polishing diamonds and then having them snatched from your grasp with the winning line in sight.

As for having £20-30m to spend Fenway have been here for three windows and have spent £35m nett which is a little under £12m a window a sum offset by the reduction in wages. We have haemorrhaged World class talent for fun over the last three years and the way to address that is not by buying 2nd or 3rd tier British players and paying them 60k a week.