EDIT - There's a possibility this goes through twice as my PC and the site seem at odds with each other at present, so I am attempting to re-send as the "New Reply" load seems to be failing me - apologise should there be a double-post.
Originally Posted by
Steveo
1. No specific aspect at all - just suggesting that the template you painted illustrated a slightly worrying balancing act. Hoping that youth come through and that IF not they can be shifted to generate funds is plenty of gambling. It isn't a viable model to generate long term success IMO.
2. IF Keita and the OX doesn't worry the pants off you as the core of our midfield going forward then I doubt you are easy to scare.. Hats off to you sir...brave man...
Alrighty, am Home from work, have to see a client later and am watching my dog like a Hawk as he has Pyothermic Dermatitis and is miserable, but will attempt to address this. Full disclosure - I have inserted a "1" and a "2" into your post just for reference point for me, but otherwise your quote remains the same - hope you don't mind.
1. Alrighty, first of all let's look at the balancing act. You mentioned it being a lot of gambling. I'll accept that every transfer has an element of gamble to it, but EVERY transfer in Football is a gamble. The difference with ourselves is we are further ahead than most (if not all) at the scouting/data/analysis department and things we look out for are GPS records for players that can physically cope with two games a week having performed X sprints per game (assessment bar undisclosed by club) for Y amount of time with Z repetitions of such sprints, with things like human character traits factored in when we talk to players for recruitment to see if they are a good "fit" and the execution of physical side of the game being done with a fairly consistently good injury record. Mane for example was recruited this way - he does almost everything you could want and is almost never injured. As far as gambles go, we are better proverbial card players than almost everyone. Crucially, because our wage structure is sensible and we aim to avoid over-spending in relation to perceived value, we are usually in a position to make back a percentage of what we lose should we have a "dud".
It only takes one or two players to be sold at a good price for a lot of money to be made back / a lot of wages freed up for more young players. Take Raheem Sterling - bought for £450,000 rising to £2m and sold for £50m, with the wages freed up potentially being there to pay the wages of young players (I don't know how exactly that money was used, nobody does, but it's money to be used is my point). Or you take someone like Trent who has come through the Academy who, whilst we certainly wouldn't sell, could probably fetch (Covid aside) North of £80m on account of being young/English/talented if he went to another English side. Or take Harvey Elliott, who was acquired for something like £7m and has every chance (assuming his development at a club where Klopp is manager and we have some of the best data analysts, sports science staff and nutritionists around plus great players to learn from) of developing into a player who can do big things for us (saving millions in transfer fees) or be sold after further development (for a decent wedge, due to talent/age/nationality). I don't see that sort of thinking as a gamble in the sense of blindly rolling the dice and hoping for lady luck - I see it as very shrewd decision-making, versus a side like Chelsea who are spunking absolute mega-bucks to more-than-likely elevate them from attaining a Champion's League spot (finished 4th in 19/20) to a Champion's League spot (they should finish Top Four in 20/21 but I don't think they win the League) by purchasing what could prove to be too many players at once.
Our policy of looking at multiple Youth talents and getting them in NOW and potentially developing them here or via the loan market (that we actually make intelligent use of) as opposed to buying ready-made talent "from the hanger" every single time has the potential to save us millions (via not slapping out £40m wads of cash constantly) whilst also having the capacity to generate us millions should we develop an inexpensive acquisition into a decent-but-not-quite-Liverpool-decent player via a sale later on. Luis Alberto (again, appreciate Covid has disrupted things) has an £89m release clause at Lazio and we negotiated a 30% sell-on fee in his contract when he was sold for £4m, having been bought for £6.8m (a £2.8m loss isn't dreadful by any means) and in the event that someone did come in and sell him, we're looking at the guts of £30m coming our way. That hasn't happened so far of course, but should we manage to negotiate similar stipulations into contracts of those we sell, the occasional wind-fall can be made use of - in that particular instance, if we got £30m for a player that wasn't even with us any more, we've covered 40% of a £75m transfer fee - imagine that - a player not even at the club potentially covering 40% of our largest ever transfer - it's bonkers.
This Summer, we have bought a Polish winger Matuesz Musialowski from SMS Lodz - he's 16 and highly-rated, with the potential to become a future international for Poland, with Fabian Mrozek also coming in, a highly-rated young keeper. Two inexpensive acquisitions that have the potential to supplement our incomings.
This policy is ONE area where I feel we are intelligent in the market and I do think it's sustainable* to do this (asterisk is for a point I wish to come back to) along with other pieces of intelligence in the market. For example, our data analysts obviously felt Robertson (a £6m, relegated player we seemingly had no competition for) was worth going after and (to come back to Youth) we brought Trent through the Academy. Compare this to the £350m(?) or so that City have spent on defenders and a key component of their back four is Kyle fucking Walker - if we're going to talk about models being sustainable, I would say our method looks more sustainable than City's!
Then we've got the too-good-to-ignore transfers. Shaqiri, Milner and Minamino (£13m, free transfer, £7m) all came here for less than the £22.5m or so that Spurs spent on Serge Aurier. Shaqiri (yes, Covid interfered) played a part in our win against Barcelona (priceless ) and could probably, under "normal" circumstances be sold for £20m, with someone like Elliott promoted who actually gets on the pitch due to not being constantly injured. So we made a decent acquisition and will probably "replace" that acquisition from within, therefore not having to spend more money - that's just intelligent business really.
These sorts of "savings" coupled with clever recruitment when we do spend a bit more (Firmino was a committee signing, Salah wasn't Klopp's first choice, Klopp wanted Mario Goetze at one stage and the club decided "no") so as to find value even with a big outlay (Van Dijk cost £75m but is probably worth more like £125m to most clubs, so still "value") allows us to do things like pay out the wages needed to hold key players down (wages are a big expense, annoyingly agent fees are too for contract renewals) as well as finding more of the talent/money generation of Youth, PLUS spend a bit bigger when we need to - we're off the back of a 97-point and 99-point season and we don't see a need for massive change right now - I expect we will see a "big" transfer or two at the end of either 20/21 or 21/22 as fans are right to think that all teams needs refreshing and tweaks - and if we find FSG reluctant to bring a player or two in then yes, by all means hit the "uproar" button - but they're on a hiding to nothing in some ways - we could sell three players we developed for £20m each and bring in a £60m player and some fans would complain "God damn it, we broke even" whereas we should be saying "damn, we got the big money signing at a minimal loss which protects our future yet further - nice one". Take Thiago this year - if we sell Shaqiri for £15m say and Wilson for £15m say (one injured a lot and not in use, one we're not using at all) and use that money to buy Thiago, one of the World's top midfielders, people will complain about it I just don't understand that and never will.
* To come back to my asterisk, when we talk about sustainability of the model, what's the measure? Finishing with 97 points or 99 points and being a Karius/dislocated shoulder away from two Champion's Leagues in a row and two Leagues in a row obviously isn't sustainable as a level as we are record-breaking - would that mean the Club has failed? Or are we talking regular Top Four finishes with regular challenges for the League and for the Champion's League, which is a much fairer measure? We need some parameters upon which to judge.
2. I'll agree I am a brave man, first and foremost But I will say this - I do actually agree that hanging all our hopes on Ox and Keita being the long-term "2" in a 1-2 midfield for a 3-5 year period say would be iffy. But I do think that one of them (or both competing for the one spot) is certainly fine, with Fabinho being viewed as the "1" behind it and naturally there being competition for places when Milner/Henderson/Wijnaldum aren't here - that competition likely to consist of those promoted from within (Curtis Jones and possibly other Youths as the problem is not yet immediate) or those being utilised in different positions (Minamino might occasionally play there) along with, of course, transfers - so that in time we will have 6 players for the 3 positions, with Fabinho, possibly Jones and Ox/Keita shaping up to take 3 of those spots, with the other 3 being a problem for the future that our staff are undoubtedly currently looking at, whilst trying to improve the injury record of those already with us - Keita has been quite carefully managed for example. He had 18 League appearances last season with 25 League appearances the season before that (in a competitive side!) and hopefully 20/21 will give us further indication of how far along he has (or hasn't) come.
I think a lot of your worry Steveo (and you aren't alone in it) comes from "what about when Klopp leaves?" and it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask. How I look at it is that we are aiming to be excellent in as many departments as possible and will continue to aim to improve in as many departments as possible and are forming, if you will, a Liverpool Way 2.0 and when Klopp's time is up, we will recruit a Manager who best fits the Liverpool Way 2.0 system to continue a role amongst what will be a financially stable, well-run Club, with excellent Sports Science, excellent Sports Psychologists, excellent Recruitment staff, excellent Transfer Negotiator and so on and so forth - it's about being good EVERYWHERE and that way, should a Manager come in that isn't as Elite as our 1-in-a-million coach, the "gap" should be somewhat filled by us being good in the running of all aspects of the Club. It is certainly fair to say that Klopp is something of an outlier in the Footballing World, but I truly can foresee us being competitive post-Klopp because we will still be striving to ensure we maintain success once he goes - the ground will hold more fans than when he came in to generate revenue, we'll be selling more shirts on the back of the successes of this team, the younger lads like Trent/Jones/Brewster will be passing on some of the "heritage" acquired from leaders like Klopp/Milner/Henderson/Van Dijk and so on and so forth.
We won't always have an edge in all departments. Football is cyclical in Nature. But do I have Faith that FSG and the foundations being laid by a combo of Analysts, Scientists and our awesome Boss, along with excellent recruitment and Kirkby-developed talent are going to lead us to a sustained spell of good times by continuing the good work that is being done at the club, evolving it and intelligently selecting a good "fit" for our club once Klopp leaves? The answer is yes - and do I think it's all fairly sustainable? The answer again is yes.
Many will disagree. Many others will simply find negatives everywhere so they can say "see, I told you so" any time any little thing goes wrong. Good for them, won't begrudge them that if it makes the poor sods happy. As things stand, I am very optimistic about where we're at and where we're going and hopefully some of the above explains why, though I will almost always have more to say
Your hobbies are rollerblading and you're also a bit of a rat-hound? Steel Wool
Sid knows he's crazy and he likes it. Balinkay
Bookmarks