There is a strange dichotomy of thought that comes with being a football supporter.
When your team plays a match, the majority of fans are completely and utterly tribal in their interpretation of events. Each foul committed by your team is “soft”, whilst those offences of the opposition are “stonewall”. Your team has played either exceptionally or abysmally – depending on the result. A victory gained when your team has played poorly is a sign of Champions/relegation survivors. A loss when you’ve played well is proof positive that the team is not yet ready to step up or is doomed to relegation.
However off the field, things are different. Any success on a commercial scale is viewed somewhat sneeringly. Any failure to develop the club is seen as being entirely the fault of those in the public eye.
So it is that many fans are viewing Liverpool’s failure to strengthen in the January transfer window. The fact that Mohamed Salah ended up at Chelsea is entirely because Liverpool failed to act quickly enough. The lack of a photo of Yevhen Konoplayanka being touched up by Zaf Iqbal is down to Ian Ayre’s inability to close a deal.
But is it really so black and white?
Is it so totally and utterly inconceivable that Salah’s club – Basel – or his agent (or both) might have wanted to drag out the transfer themselves in order to see if a bigger or better offer came in? After all, most people in world football knew that Jose Mourinho was (inconceivably) happy to see Juan Mata leave, meaning that Chelsea would look to bring in a replacement. Is it such an outlandish idea that Basel and Salah’s representatives might have wanted to see how that developed before putting pen to paper on a move to Liverpool? He was sold for more than LFC’s valuation and is being paid more wages that the Merseyside club were offering, so if it was their plan it was a good one.
Many point to Jose Mourinho’s comments that Chelsea “started from zero” with Salah as evidence that the above scenario wasn’t what happened. That’s right. Liverpool fans are keener to trust the words of Jose Mourinho – who NEVER lies to gain a psychological advantage over his opponents – rather than give the club they support the benefit of the doubt.
Another criticism of Liverpool’s transfer policy is that there was “no plan B” to missing out on Salah. Yet no sooner had the player signed for Chelsea did reports of Liverpool’s interest in Konoplayanka emerge. What is this if not a plan B? They are players of a similar ilk and Liverpool’s interest is reportedly quite long term. Surely moving from one target to another is a sign of at least a slightly consistent game plan?
Some LFC fans tweeted after the deadline to sign the player had past that Ian Ayre should have “made sure Dnipro wanted to sell before heading over to Ukraine”. Perhaps they’d have been better sharing this opinion on the telephone call between the clubs they evidently listened in on? Also, how many clubs do these people imagine openly say they are willing to sell their players? What sort of bargaining position would the Dnipro chairman have been in had he said to Ian Ayre “yep, he’s for sale. What you looking to pay?”
Players will never be “up for sale”. There will be noises made; hints offered. The parties concerned will have coded conversations. Ian Ayre wouldn’t have travelled to Ukraine without these.
Reports suggest that everything that needed to be done was done, with the Dnipro chairman simply refusing to sign the papers at the end of the negotiations. What more could Ian Ayre have done?
The arguement that it shouldn’t have been left until the end of the window doesn’t hold water. The club was trying to get the Salah deal done and only found out late in the day that it had failed. So they moved on to Konoplayanka as soon as they could – near the end of the window.
Could LFC have, as many have suggested, “moved quicker”? Possibly. But if a club and/or player’s agent is deliberately dragging their heels then there’s not an awful lot you can do. The selling club will always be in the most powerful position in any negotiation.
The simple truth is the only people that know the full ins and outs of the Salah deal – as well as the Konoplayanka collapse – are those who were in the room. The rest is little more than hearsay and guess work. Phrases like “if things are to be believed” get bandied about at times like this. “From what the papers say” is another. Most intelligent fans are quick to dismiss the “info” given out by ITKs, yet are happy to believe negative things offered by those with “sources at the club”.
The final defence that can be offered of FSG comes in the form of players already at the club.
December and January were bad months for Liverpool as far as injuries go. But when you look at the squad it could be argued there’s at least one player for every position in the starting 11:
Mignolet (Jones)
Johnson (Flanno) Skrtel (Toure) Agger (Sakho) Enrique (Cissokho)
Lucas (Allen) Gerrard (Alberto) Henderson (Coutinho)
Sterling (Ibe) Suarez (Aspas) Sturridge (Moses)
Then when you take loan/youth players into account the list grows stronger still:
Reina
Wisdom Ilori Kelly McLaughlin
Branagan Suso Rossiter
Borini Yesil Assaidi
Assaidi has been doing an excellent job for Stoke and has staked a claim to return to the club next season and be given a shot as a strong squad player. The same is true of Borini. Reports from Spain suggest that Suso is developing into a fine player in exactly the mould that Brendan Rodgers likes.
Now of course there’s arguments to be made about the relative quality of all of these players – some are clearly far stronger (or ready for the first team) than others – but the fact remains that they are owned by Liverpool Football Club. Some of them have been bought reasonably recently. So, from FSG’s point of view, is splashing more cash on unproven players really a solid forward plan?
It’s also worth noting that the targets LFC have apparently been trying to buy have ended up at the likes of Chelsea and Dortmund – we’re not losing out to Fulham or Hull.
There’s no way to defend LFC’s transfer policy as being totally flawless. Mistakes have been made. But if you consistently look for faults the evidence will always support your designs. If FSG had spent £20m on just one player there would be calls for them to build the squad. It’s lose-lose.
Sneer at the sight of Dunkin’ Donut touching the ‘This Is Anfield’ sign all you want, but next time the club are trying to buy a player don’t be too quick to complain about them not having enough money.
Everyone can be tribal when the team in red crosses the white line. It’s time to offer a touch more support to those that wear the suits.
