Brilliant Tes!
This man, who refused to work under a DoF, was
given £120 million to spend.
We're not interested in the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
Management, ultimately is about delivering results.
He's now spent around £200M during his time here. Whilst I'm not expecting 100% success, even Bob Paisley had his Frank McGarvey, but has that money been used wisely, on the right players, the right positions, players at the right time in their career to offer us what we need, of sufficient quality and has value been gained on at least 3 in 4 transactions?
It may seem short sighted to castigate him for buying 'for the future' as well as the present, but by his own admission, the squad was still paper thin after 4 windows, and now after 5, can we really spot the difference?
Should he for example have spent £8M* on Alberto, £7M* on Ilori and even £18M* on Sakho last Summer, when he'd spent his first Summer trimming the wage bill (aka experienced players) and hence the squad, both in terms of quality, experience and 'overall' depth (not just numbers)?
Were either of the first two such highly talented youngsters that we simply had to have them now, or regret not buying them 'when we had the chance', ala CRonaldo and Kun Aguero?
Or spending £10.5M* on Borini, only to dispatch him on loan after one injury hit season, spend another £8M* on his replacement, only to send him out on loan aswell. Was that really the best use of £18.5M* that could have been made?
We've spent £30M+ on Sakho and Moreno, two young defenders with the ability to offer something now, but with the hope they will only be at the start of their contribution level, and that that particular graphical curve will arc sharply upwards over the next 5 years, but we've not invested in the coaching infrastructure to help that become a reality.
We looked at Lovren last Summer, and had had an interest pre-dating Rodgers, but for whatever reason chose to spend marginally less on Ilori than Southampton spent on Lovren, and then decide maybe we should have bought him afterall and then pay out more than double. Maybe at £20M, a 135% increase in price in just 12 months, we should have just decided that particular ship had sailed, especially like in the cases of our other two expensive defensive recruits the infrastructure doesn't exist to make sure we wring every penny of that £20M price tag out of him.
Was £20M on Markovic a more essential outlay than putting it towards the solution of the 'here and now' problem of filling a Suarez sized hole, especially when a Balotelli, by the manager's own admission, was the best we could afford to fill the £75M boots of Luis?
Obviously as a window is unfolding it can be a touch puzzling as to 'why that player' etc, and 'yeah but hindsight etc' can be used as a counter argument to what I'm saying, but now the window's been shut a while and a long time on last season's transfer activity, is it really any clearer as to why these particular players were bought, how they fit in the overall picture, what made them and the outlay made on each deemed to be so necessary over alternatives not purchased?
Is it a case of 'ah, now I understand' or is the question still as baffling now as it was at the time and at any point since?
As with Balotelli, everyone knew who and what he was, yet it was a 'risk', but a risk deemed worth taking, but as with any risk, you can't then moan or be surprised when the known potential downside becomes uppermost.
Has the £16M + wages investment really heralded any benefit over not having spent it, especially when there was a good chance that this situation was likely to be the outcome? And playing Balotelli as a lone striker when he clearly isn't and never has been is hardly helping to try and prevent the highly potential downside from becoming reality. Rodgers in a way has poured flammable liquid on the flames and is now wondering why a 'liquid' hasn't doused the fire.
