Reply With QuoteWe don't know what FSG thought of Klopp. We'll possibly never know for sure, but as far as I'm concerned FSG hired Klopp first and foremost because he had proved that he could be and had been successful whilst only having a rather limited transfer budget to play with, and also whilst having integral players to his team sold from underneath him.Originally Posted by jozza800
One massive point that many don't seem to be taking into account is the relationship between the manager, the owners, the CEO, and those tasked with sporting and recruitment decisions. Klopp made it known that he wanted more players but that he was denied those things by those who had the final say. It was well known that Klopp and Michael Edwards didn't get on. Now with that being the case it's not hard to imagine a scenario between the two whereby one wants more players of a certain type, whilst the other person who has the final say refuses such requests even if those requests are perfectly reasonable and are being made by someone who has proved themselves.
If someone has a certain way of doing things or a particular way of dealing with people especially those they butt heads with, they are for the most part going to do the same things even if everyone else can see the folly in what they are doing. This seems to be pervasive within the world of football be it on or off the pitch e.g. the likes of Amorim or Postecoglu not being willing to change their style, or say Daniel Levy/Enic at Spurs not being willing to change their wage structure in order to be able to compete for the signature of top players. Benitez proved himself by winning the CL yet he still wasn't backed by H&G. The likes of FSG might be successful businesspeople, but that doesn't preclude them from making highly questionable decisions, something that often happens because they have massive egos and aren't willing to back down or change their way of doing things.
Klopp wasn't a yes man, an attribute that I have no doubt would rub the likes of Edwards and his paymasters up the wrong way. On the other hand we have Slot who seems more like someone who wouldn't want to risk the ire of those above him. He obviously didn't want Chiesa, and his use or non use of other players after a scattergun approach to our summer transfers suggests that he has less say in what tools he is given than some believe.
The players we bought may have been acquired because of reasons such as having a connection to the sporting director e.g. Hughes and Kirkez, or because they felt that there was an opportunity for a FFP or PSR related splurge that might not arise again for a while. You say that they gave Slot half a billion pound to spend, but did Slot himself have half a billion pound to spend on the players he wanted? I'd say no. Did Slot want to get rid of Diaz who was an integral part to his title win? Or was such things out of his hands, just as they seemingly were with the Isak and Ekitike rather than a one or the other scenario?
To me it seems like things are still the same in terms of our manager being employed as more of a coach who has to make the best out of what they are given, rather than an actual manager who has a major say, if not the final say when it comes to player acquisitions.
