Mamadou Sakho

[Alex]

Do people think that other clubs dont have a transfer 'committee'?

Do you honestly think people like Arsene Wenger swans into the boardroom, tells them who he wants to sign, goes out and scouts the player, negotiates the fee and then the contract?

Do people actually think thats what BR should be doing? Or is a more collaborative approach more sensible?

**** me, at work the other week we talked about getting a new piece of software. 3 different people were asked for input, and that was about £500s worth.

[dom9]

Agree with this - Brendan has shown is willing to give players a chance - but I also agree to a point with G. We have a transfer committee and Brendan has to agree to every player that signs, sure. But he can give his blessing to any incoming transfer with varying degrees of enthusiasm. It seems clear there are targets and signings that are more driven by Brendan, and others who are more driven by the committee. I'm sure Brendan gave the nod to Sakho but I can't imagine it was the same degree of enthusiasm and agreement than with, say, Lovren.

There's been a few signings that appear more down to the work of the committee - Luis Alberto, Assaidi, Sahin and now Sakho. Only my opinion.

Well yes but that's different to "he certainly didn't agree to buy him" which kicked this whole debate into overdrive.

[dom9]

Do people think that other clubs dont have a transfer 'committee'?

Do you honestly think people like Arsene Wenger swans into the boardroom, tells them who he wants to sign, goes out and scouts the player, negotiates the fee and then the contract?

Do people actually think thats what BR should be doing? Or is a more collaborative approach more sensible?

**** me, at work the other week we talked about getting a new piece of software. 3 different people were asked for input, and that was about £500s worth.

Missing the point.

Nobody is disputing the existence of a committee.

People are debating whether players were signed at great expense against Brendan's will

[Shaggy]

I certainly don't think he has anyone foisted upon him, but I think he will be agreeing to some (some) new signings that he's not 100% convinced by or responsible for.

[Alex]

Missing the point.

Nobody is disputing the existence of a committee.

People are debating whether players were signed at great expense against Brendan's will

No, im not missing the point.

My point was that people seem to think this committee is exclusive to us and that it overrides the manager. It doesnt, its for the manager to get the players.

It might not be a first choice, but there job is to provide a viable list of alternatives. My understanding is that some think that list of alternatives are not approved by Brendan and then forced on him.

[dom9]

No, im not missing the point.

My point was that people seem to think this committee is exclusive to us and that it overrides the manager. It doesnt, its for the manager to get the players.

It might not be a first choice, but there job is to provide a viable list of alternatives. My understanding is that some think that list of alternatives are not approved by Brendan and then forced on him.

Which people think it's exclusive to us?

*here we go again*

[fred_plasticine]

there is at least one high profile case of a manager telling a player straight away that he won't play him because he didn't want to sign him in the first place: that's the current united manager to luca toni at bayern. just to stick it up to ulli hoenes.
things like that happen when big egos struggle for power. as long as your successful it might even pay off.
i give brendan the benefit of the doubt though. like others have said before, players who seemed to be out of favour have worked their way back into the team. i think it all comes down to how players respond to challenges and instructions.

[dom9]

I certainly don't think he has anyone foisted upon him, but I think he will be agreeing to some (some) new signings that he's not 100% convinced by or responsible for.

I'd say that is inevitable. Compromise is inevitable if decisions are made by committee.

It's about minimising risk.

[Alex]

Which people think it's exclusive to us?

*here we go again*

People people.

G seems to think that way (without putting words in his mouth). A couple of my friends seem to think similar.

[dom9]

People people.

G seems to think that way (without putting words in his mouth). A couple of my friends seem to think similar.

Really?

G's point to me seemed to be that Brendan was overridden by the rest of the committee and he had the likes of Sakho forced upon him.

But I can't speak for G.

Anyway, transfer committees are pretty much the default structure in most European countries. They're nothing unusual.

[Muddled]

I'll just drop these three words in and moonwalk back out of the thread:

Alberto and Aspas.

[Shaggy]

I'll just drop these three words in and moonwalk back out of the thread:

Alberto and Aspas.

If you remember Fallows and Hunter left City because they wanted to unearth the next stars, and were pissed off with City ignoring their recommendations and just going out and buying Silva, Aguero etc for big money, something any one of us could have done.

I was once told (by a journalist (one of the good ones tbf) so it's not necessarily a fact ) that Coutinho and Sturridge were initially driven by the committee (Fallows and Hunter mainly). Obviously they both knew Sturridge from his time at City and Coutinho fits the bill in terms of young and great untapped potential. Rodgers turned his nose up at Sturridge in the summer window but had been convinced by the time the next window came around.

I think it's clear these guys have more influence and a greater say than your regular scouting networks at other clubs who don't have a committee in place.

[The_weatherman]

If you remember Fallows and Hunter left City because they wanted to unearth the next stars, and were pissed off with City ignoring their recommendations and just going out and buying Silva, Aguero etc for big money, something any one of us could have done.

I was once told (by a journalist (one of the good ones tbf) so it's not necessarily a fact ) that Coutinho and Sturridge were initially driven by the committee (Fallows and Hunter mainly). Obviously they both knew Sturridge from his time at City and Coutinho fits the bill in terms of young and great untapped potential. Rodgers turned his nose up at Sturridge in the summer window but had been convinced by the time the next window came around.

I think it's clear these guys have more influence and a greater say than your regular scouting networks at other clubs who don't have a committee in place.

I think so too, and agree with G a bit here as well. We have Alberto, Aspas, Sakho, Sahin and Assaidi who I believe are signings put forward by the committee. The risk is that they don't receive fair treatment from Rodgers if he wanted someone else.

[MrMichael]

I'm saying he hasn't got a fair chance, whatever the reasons. I stick by that.

But here's the thing G, you are drawing a direct cause and effect correlation between a rumour nobody knows the actual truth of that Rodgers didn't want to sign him, and your subjective opinion that Sakho should have started more games, when in actuality even if both are true they could well be completely independent of each other.

Even if we accept for the sake of argument that Rodgers didn't want to sign him or preferred an alternative, why would we then go on believe he hasn't had his mind changed through training / performances since, in the exact way the likes of Skrtel and Henderson have done?

And why would we believe that lack of conviction he has in Sakho is not nowadays more down to what he sees day in day out on that training pitch, in comparison to alternatives? Do we know if Sakho listens to tactical instruction, or is staying behind for extra work demonstrating his commitment to improve or whatever?

And anyway, has he really not had a fair chance? What is that anyway? Sakho started about half our league games last year, when you knock off the few at the start or straight after he signed, and the games he had out injured with his hamstring in the middle, Agger was only selected above him (a viable choice too given his ability and experience) on quite a small number of occasions.

And really, should our manager be selecting players so as to ensure they get "a fair chance"? We were in a title chase ffs, he surely chose the best team he thought he had to give us the best chance of winning every game (which we nearly did), screw worrying about giving everyone a fair opportunity in that circumstance. Just because some of the fans believe, sort of without much actual evidence in his performances since he signed and rather against the statistics, that Sakho is one of our best defenders, doesn't mean we're actually right, or that Brendan's choice not to pick him is based on anything other than an assessment of who would comprise our best defence.

I totally agree that he doesn't seem to rate him, but do you not think there is a possibility, nay even a probability, that this could be simply a genuinely held judgement of him as a player (right or wrong)?

[Muddled]

I think it's clear these guys have more influence and a greater say than your regular scouting networks at other clubs who don't have a committee in place.

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

I don't think it's as extreme as the club going over Rodgers, but I think there will be pressure gently applied to him to get certain players. My understanding is that Ayre, Fallows, Edwards and Rodgers will decide on their transfer targets, Rodgers will give the green light. Ayre will then negotiate and FSG rubber stamp the deal. Overall, I think the remit given by FSG will mean our success rate in the transfer market will be hit and miss and this will result in conspiracy theories gathering momentum.

Rodgers has probably bombed Alberto, Aspas - and to a lesser extent Sakho, because when he's had the chance to work with them, they've not been up to scratch for a whole host of reasons.