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

[teesred]

Lots of Bellingham rumours. For next season.
Nothing reputable yet though.

[Taksin]

@ Miller

He was still considered the best manager in the world, even though he had a sugar daddy.

Again, you’re arguing that the ownership was more influential than his greatness, which was my point.

Obviously it isn’t black and white - I’ve given four major reasons for our success, not one. I’m arguing against the black and white view.

I also believe the emperor is the most important factor in the success of the empire. And the manager is not he emperor, even if the fans like to imagine he is.

[miller0863]

Not quite sure of your overall stance but to put it as succinctly as I can from my point of view, each situation should be taken on it’s own merits.
At Chelsea, a succession of managers found a certain level of success, even Di Matteo. In Chelsea’s case it’s pretty obvious their success was predominately down to the owner.
In Liverpool’s case their success is predominately down to the manager. The owners merely put the club on a level footing, it was Klopp who took them to their current level.

Each case on it’s merits, not always black or white, one way or the other.

[CCTV]

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.



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) 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.

3) 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.



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

5) 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.

1) as said, you introduced that tag of sole reason in your posts. A windmill to knock down that I didn't bring into my posts.

With regards sids hypothetical proposition, I replied using examples of keymen who left and were suddenly not so key to our or his success.

2) I'd argue that Klopp was expected to upend our transfer policy and really has brought a wealth of knowledge to that department. Thomkin times had some really good articles before he signed that were prophetic with hindsight.
A few things I'd credit to his effect, summarised....
The character principle in signing players.
The only LFC or we're not interested, avoiding bidding wars to a degree
Holding out for fees and not being mugged for unwanted players
Reducing net spend on transfers

I'm really not sure what you actually mean regarding these measures.
I wonder if you'd put the changes above into FSG column over Klopp?

3) again some disagreement
For me Klopp is an elite manager, unique in how he operates at that level and is simply a blessing on the club.
As i assess owners the distribution of this group is narrower. For me whoever is manager or owner, there is more variance with selecting a manager. As said above I also believe that Klopp has had an impact on how we operate.
In a hypothetical scenario, where each of the top 6 clubs or any top club in the pl has our manager or our ownership, I'd speculate that the addition of Klopp to our rivals and their ilk would have a greater impact than our owners.

4) sure.
Had Klopp took over from Fergie do you think Klopp would have failed at manu with that money to spend because of the owners ?

5) on the streams, foreign and domestically, the broadcasters refer to Klopps liverpool.
It tends to happen with the great managers, peps barca, Busby babies, Shanklys reds, Paisley's reds, Klopps Dortmund, Fergies united.
In our rivals eyes from what I've seen FSG has an increased rating largely due to Klopp and the improvement in transfers since he arrived. I have rated them before Klopp arrived.

It will be interesting to see for sure, the club is on course to be handed over in a pristine manner relative to when Klopp took over.
Maybe Lijnders goes on after Klopp to bigger and better things at LFC. I wouldn't bet on it, whereas I still remember the euphoric feelings when Klopp was announced as our new manager. The sense of certainty that we were finally going places.

[CCTV]

Not quite sure of your overall stance but to put it as succinctly as I can from my point of view, each situation should be taken on it’s own merits.
At Chelsea, a succession of managers found a certain level of success, even Di Matteo. In Chelsea’s case it’s pretty obvious their success was predominately down to the owner.
In Liverpool’s case their success is predominately down to the manager. The owners merely put the club on a level footing, it was Klopp who took them to their current level.

Each case on it’s merits, not always black or white, one way or the other.

That's what I said to Taksin earlier, he has a form of argument that talks about the parts of a club in an abstract sense. It's the emperor.
Whereas concrete examples require a more specific analysis.

[Taksin]

Had Klopp took over from Fergie do you think Klopp would have failed at manu with that money to spend because of the owners ?

I've answered this before a few times. I suspect he would have failed there if he'd followed Fergie because the owners had lost their way and would be unable to intemperate what was going wrong due to the manager and what was going wrong due to them. As I keep saying, successful governance isn't just a matter of spending money that the manager asks for. Look at the role of Fergie since he retired - who is running the show?

Anyway, it's hypothetical and therefore not testable, as is Klopp without FSG or FSG without Klopp. If you (non-personal) are convinced it's all Klopp magic you will think we would be nowhere without him and we lost the three European finals due to underinvestment.

[Taksin]

At Chelsea, a succession of managers found a certain level of success, even Di Matteo. In Chelsea’s case it’s pretty obvious their success was predominately down to the owner.
In Liverpool’s case their success is predominately down to the manager. The owners merely put the club on a level footing, it was Klopp who took them to their current level.
.

I just think this is a biased view that does not apply the same standards to each situation

Chelsea have built incredible squads by going 1.2 billion pounds into debt
We currently have built a better squad than them with skilful management of our own resources

It's easy to argue that should afford more credit to our owners than to theirs

[CCTV]

I've answered this before a few times. I suspect he would have failed there if he'd followed Fergie because the owners had lost their way and would be unable to intemperate what was going wrong due to the manager and what was going wrong due to them. As I keep saying, successful governance isn't just a matter of spending money that the manager asks for. Look at the role of Fergie since he retired - who is running the show?

Anyway, it's hypothetical and therefore not testable, as is Klopp without FSG or FSG without Klopp. If you (non-personal) are convinced it's all Klopp magic you will think we would be nowhere without him and we lost the three European finals due to underinvestment.

It's a funny one, clearly under Fergie they let the squad get old and when Fergie fucked off he left a squad that needed some work.
Same owners, largely same players and a new manager who Fergie announced with praise. Players didn't respect Moyes and you can see the drop off in their PL without Fergie.

As I see it Fergie/Owners should have handed over a squad more ready to compete with an inferior manager.
After fergie left there's been no shortage of money spent, but they've always been struggling to replace Fergie and really should have invested more on players before he left.
I do hope when the time comes for Klopp to leave that we hand over a top squad to the new guy.

Well we can look at Klopp at other clubs in reality where he's succeeded, and similarly we can look at FSG at LFC without Klopp, and their other business ventures. But yeah hypotheticals are what they are.

Where do you think we would be without Klopp ?

Prior to his arrival we underperformed against our net spend. Over time I think the club would have improved on that reality.
Klopps outperformed the money prediction splendidly, and delivered each and every title on the way.

[CCTV]

I just think this is a biased view that does not apply the same standards to each situation

Chelsea have built incredible squads by going 1.2 billion pounds into debt
We currently have built a better squad than them with skilful management of our own resources

It's easy to argue that should afford more credit to our owners than to theirs

Chelsea have arguably been the most successful side in England this century, winning 2 CL titles, EL, Pls and some domestics.

The fans loved Roman, and whilst he pumped in a load of cash, I believe he would have turned a large profit on his investment and raised Chelsea's profile massively.

[Taksin]

As I see it Fergie/Owners should have handed over a squad more ready to compete with an inferior manager.
After fergie left there's been no shortage of money spent, but they've always been struggling to replace Fergie and really should have invested more on players before he left.

I don't know what's going on there exactly. But objectively you can see that they have lost their way in terms of the CEO, the government, the monarch. When the king is sick, the whole kingdom starts to lose its shape. The rot seemed to set in before Ferguson left and a stronger king would probably have asked him to stay a bit further away from the club so they could start to rebuild.

A weak king might imagine the success of the club was down only to the manager and ask him, the successful one, to sort it all out.

Maybe they have learnt their lessons and the new manager is one for the long term and has the right qualities. But he is lumbered with Ronaldo and a squad of journeymen to sort out. His summer business doesn't seem very good so far and there are rumblings of discontent about their ability to work the transfer market.

Where do you think we would be without Klopp ?

It depends who our manager was. I can imagine someone like Pochettino could have done really well here. He would probably have enjoyed similar squad building privileges, probably have been a bit more defensively minded, which might have worked out well, and would probably have been able to set alight the best fans in the world, which gives us a huge advantage. It's worth mentioning that Klopp, who is the dog's bollocks and the best guy in the world, has been a bit unlucky here. Maybe someone else would have actually won more. It doesn't seem that out of the question to me.