Liverpool transfers in/out and rumours 22/23 + Contracts

[CCTV]

(1) It is circular because, as you say, the transformation is under both. You claim it is down to one party. I could claim it is down to the other but I don't, I instead claim it is down to both parties.

2) One party, however, was here before him, making mistakes, learning by them and ultimately working out that he was the right man for the job. They can't do his job because they aren't football managers, but the job they do comes first.



I don't think that's right. There is well documented evidence that there is a team assessing who is suitable and puts them forward - they have the first say.

Klopp himself has said that, once that work is done, all he has to do is assess their character to see if he can work with them and if he wants them onboard. In terms of governance of the transfer budget, my opinion is that this arrangement has a touch of genius about it from FSG as it shows excellent planning and total trust in the manager at the same time.


3) Maybe that's the reason, but I doubt it. It's a bit of a moot point though. Success in the CL has its own draw beyond the financial. It's hard to imagine the owners don't suggest success in Europe would be an excellent idea financially.



5) I'd say there's a handful that I think could do well here. I prefer Klopp to all of them but that doesn't mean I don't think there aren't other candidates who might succeed. Do you think Conte could do well with this squad?




4) In my opinion, success starts with the good governance of a football club. You see that everywhere you look in football. Getting a good manager is important but he isn't the emperor, he is merely the prime minister. Chelsea's successful period, for example, will be remembered as the Abramovic era and not so much the Mourino or Di Matteo era.

The fact that we don't like Yanks doesn't change that.

There's a lot in here that I might need you to clarify further on, and I am busy this evening.

1 I'd just like to point out that I believe you are the only person whose expressed this idea around Klopp being the sole reason, or isn't the sole reason.
It didn't fit the conversation back then as I saw it. But reframing what I said, or someone else said, into an argument or statement you can falsify isn't really top form for discussions.
If I'm incorrect and you can quote me saying what I'm supposed to have said, fire away.

So clarifications

2) Are you positing that many of the clear changes that occurred with Klopps appointment were actually made by the owners/managent prior to Klopps arrival,
That the club had learnt its lessons and people misattribute these changes in strategy to Klopp because he came in the door just as these decisions were implemented ?
Because I've posted articles of what to expect with Klopp based on his career prior to him signing for LFC that predicted the change in transfers that has occurred. Those Tompkins times articles are rather prophetic.

3) Is this a response to my comments about how revenue was going to increase for all clubs, and how Klopp has grown the brand and finances massively with his 4 European finals,
That JwH told Klopp about the benefits of CL success ?

4) I'm aware of your broad views, I don't think they really address this particular example.
Romans Chelsea is often rolled out, on account of him pumping millions into Chelsea to make them a successful side.
With regards our club they call it Klopps Liverpool.

5) Your replacing Klopp. A handful of managers would suggest better than good imo.
Conte could do a good job but I'm not so sure he'd stay very long. He puts high and public demands on owners, can be volatile and I'd suggest he is regarded as a top5 global manager.

Overall my impression of your post here is that whilst praising JwH, you're painting him as a rather dim fella making remedial points we all know about football to Klopp.

[scientificred]

Stop this glossing over past matters.

[Steveo]

No - some of you need to stop pretending FSG did us a favour. They have made an absolute fortune out of the most successful club in the land. They have done far better from us than we have from them. They did well getting Klopp in - no doubt about that, but they have made plenty of poor decisions too.

We have become a success despite them and mainly down to Klopp. Even If they had bagged Ancelotti - I just don’t see anything even remotely close to what we have achieved with Jurgen.

We have been blessed with an absolutely incredible manager. No need to try and paint it any other way

[scientificred]

No - some of you need to stop pretending FSG did us a favour. They have made an absolute fortune out of the most successful club in the land. They have done far better from us than we have from them. They did well getting Klopp in - no doubt about that, but they have made plenty of poor decisions too.

We have become a success despite them and mainly down to Klopp.

Enjoy! Looking forward to Nunes and Carvalho to blossom this coming season. Not to mention Diaz and a rejuvenated Mo!

[Steveo]

Is Nunes joining? Looks a decent midfield option - I believe we will all enjoy Nunez - looks a proper striker

[scientificred]

Is Nunes joining? Looks a decent midfield option - I believe we will all enjoy Nunez - looks a proper striker

Sorry Steveo! Typo!

[miller0863]

The difference between the Abramovich era and the Klopp era, is massive.
Abramovic did it by being pretty much the biggest net spenders, consistently over the best part of 20 years, Klopp has brought our club success with a ridiculously small net spend during his tenure.

While I see FSG as very important players in the whole piece, with their modus operandi of tiny net spending, there is no way we would have won what we have without Jurgen Klopp at the helm, ergo he must be the main reason for Liverpool’s incredible recent success.

No doubt had Klopp gone to Utd, he would have won everything there, you cannot say that about FSG minus Klopp.

[Taksin]

I'd just like to point out that I believe you are the only person whose expressed this idea around Klopp being the sole reason, or isn't the sole reason.

If you are talking about our conversation, then in this very post you refer to 'Klopp's Liverpool'. Nothing wrong with that but it seems to be your bias in this interesting debate. If you are talking more generally I refer you to the work of Steveo and others.

If I'm incorrect and you can quote me saying what I'm supposed to have said, fire away.

I initially responded to you challenging Sid, saying;

"You were making the case for the backroom team, based on a hypothetical situation that has never manifested in reality."

"That Klopp is a successful manager more so than any of our players were successful players prior to their time here at LFC. "

I responded by saying;

"If your analysis is right, and I think it is only partially right, then the old Liverpool boot room was wrong"

So I thought then, and still think, you are partially right. But you were pouring cold water, as it appears to me, on Sid's crediting of the backroom team with some of our success when the credit should instead go to Klopp in your eyes

2) Are you positing that many of the clear changes that occurred with Klopps appointment were actually made by the owners/managent prior to Klopps arrival,
That the club had learnt its lessons and people misattribute these changes in strategy to Klopp because he came in the door just as these decisions were implemented ?

No I'm not. I'm positing that many of the changes that FSG have been implementing were starting to occur before Klopp's arrival, including novel approaches to the transfer market. Klopp has benefited from their acuity in strategy and vision and has been the galvanising factor in making sense of their long term approach to improving the club and bringing it back to success. They need him. He needs them.

The difference is, without them the club is a shambles and unattractive to any manager, including Klopp. But without him, they should be able to put their strategy to good use with another manager. That's why I think the owners are primary.

Romans Chelsea is often rolled out, on account of him pumping millions into Chelsea to make them a successful side.

Pumping money in is one means of governance. Contrary to popular belief, it does not in itself guarantee success or stability - see Man United

With regards our club they call it Klopps Liverpool.

They do some of the time. At other times they are impressed with what FSG has done. We will have to wait and see until after Klopp's departure what the continuity looks like, assuming FSG are still here then, and whether they are able to keep steering the ship in the right direction. But clubs like Chelsea, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and ,why, us in the 70s and 80s, show that a successful club is not dependant on a personality cult if it knows what it is doing.

[Taksin]

The difference between the Abramovich era and the Klopp era, is massive.
Abramovic did it by being pretty much the biggest net spenders, consistently over the best part of 20 years, Klopp has brought our club success with a ridiculously small net spend during his tenure.

Mourninho was seen as the best manager in the world at that time and for a while afterwards. Bringing up Chelsea was not to compare them to us in strategy or spending, but to point out the primacy of the role of the owner in a club's success. You are agreeing with me on this point on the one hand and then disagreeing with it on the other hand. That seems to be a recurring theme on these boards and is the main reason I keep bringing it up.

Chelsea are an example of how new ownership sets the stage for success - that's why I brought them up. I do not, however, believe the sugar daddy model is the only means to success and therefore comparing the two eras on those grounds is not the point. LFC have shown that it is possible to be successful without a sugar daddy. I am pleased about that and I think it is another reason why we are more likely to have continuity, which is again the exact opposite view to the 'it's all down to Klopp' camp

[miller0863]

I agree, the sugar Daddy model is not the only means to success and that is the point I am making. Klopp has not needed a sugar Daddy.
However, apart from at Porto(not sure what his budget was there) Mourinho has had the biggest budget around to help him succeed, apart from at Spurs, where he failed.
Same with Pep too mind, no doubting his quality but he’s had the whip hand in that league wherever he’s managed.
No one knows if he could have done it with Klopp’s budget.

These discussions aren’t always black and white mate, you can agree on some points and not on others.