The mantra of 'no player is bigger than the club' very much applies. And for any business to succeed, you need to employ the best, whether it's the players (in their right positions), the coach or manager or the management team behind the scenes. Importantly, you also need to trust their decisions...that's why they are employed. FSG are astute business people and while some won't like their decisions or approach, their success to date gives them enough credit to continue this strategy. In fact, I'm buzzing for the next season and hopefully a sustained period of dominance.
Do you think there’s a extent to which too much turnover, especially involving senior players in the leadership team, can become harmful to squad dynamics? Or do we reckon fresh faces will benefit us in the long run?
Of course. You can't sanction every sale. Like, you can't lose Tsimikas now unless you've got another LB lined up. But generally speaking I've always believed the whole loss of leaders thing is overblown. It doesn't tend to matter as long as you replace the leader in question with a good player. The problems arise when you start signing flops.
good article but now FSG and the backroom team face a new challenge - what to do if Konate refuses to sign a new contract AND refuses to be transferred to another club. Will they be hard nosed enough to put Konate out to grass for the next 12 months or will he do as Trent did, play on as if nothing has changed and then join RM?
The next few weeks will tell and i would be interested in your opinion
There's nothing we can do in that sense. Liverpool aren't in a position of strength with Konate. Keeping him for another season before losing him wouldn't be the end of the world either tbh. But I think there would be some interest in selling him if he's definitely not extending. My guess is he stays. You don't want an entirely new defensive line going into next season.
Konate will also be taking a risk by doing this considering his injury history, if he reverts next season his hand will be substantially weakened when it come to moving to another club. Real are ruthless and would not be above reneging if he got injured at the wrong time.
Completely agree. Football is a performance industry. Fans want signings and fresh faces, but at the same time it seems many (at least on social media) don’t like the idea of letting certain players go. Well, we can’t really have both can we. Partly finance but also the problems that arise around playing time and keeping players happy. I think for the right offer this window it makes sense to let Robertson go.
Elite clubs remain elite clubs by selling players who are NOT critical to future wins/points while retaining (or extending in some cases) the XI and core squad to compete for trophies in the next season(s). Academy/loan players with market value also fit this definition of "up for sale". For the XI/core squad, elite clubs only sell these when: (1) the player pushes to leave, (2) a market-rate transfer fee is paid, & (3) there is a replacement in-house already or enough time to secure one.
The most important contributor to financial sustainability is not transfer net spend. It is WINNING. Winning means: more prize money from media, more sponsorships/ad revenue, more ticket sales from more matches played.
By that logic, we should sell Darwin, Fede, Harvey, Tyler, Robbo or Kostas & Caoimhin plus Ben Doak, Kieran Morrison, & Nat Phillips. They'll generate ~£140-180 million in funds to mostly offset the cash to be spent on signings this summer. Critically, the net effect is that we're stronger next season as none of those players were a core contributor to this season's league title whereas the replacements will either improve the XI (Wirtz, Kerkez) or ensure there's no drop-off (Frimpong, Mamardashvili).
This definitely applies to Luis next season. Unless his departure is associated with an Isak or Alvarez signing (highly unlikely), then keeping Luis is worth way more financially than allowing him to leave.
First and foremost, he's our 2nd best goal producer. In addition, he's our only forward with positional flexibility = he'll play at RF when Mo is at AFCON (6 matches) and at CF when Diogo/Florian don't play there. Those two points taken together = more points in the league & more wins in UCL with Luis next season vs. with a replacement.
If he left, then he'd need to be replaced and the transfer fee paid for the replacement will probably be greater than the fee obtained from a buying club (cash neutral at best). He's on his original contract so the wages of a replacement will not save much vs. Luis' wages. It's a no-brainer to keep him unless it means we sign Isak or Alvarez.
FSG’s contracts are heavily incentivised.. so even though it’s the same contract, the pay goes up based on performance and milestones.
Diaz will be earning a top wage.
However… the rest is as you say.
Definitely Diaz, It was the same with Trent, and would be the same with Konate.
As long as you are getting the performance on the pitch and the results.. then a player who cost £40-50m leaving for free after 5years isn’t really an issue if it helps you win.
And unless there is a ready upgrade, it’s jot necessary worth the risk of not winning to force them out the door or sell at a discount as only one year left.
Ie probably better to keep konate and lose him on a free and have a real shot at winning league and CL next year..
100% agreed on your contracts/wages comment...I could have stated my point more clearly. By "original contract", I meant Luis is on a lower "guaranteed wage" as presumably a replacement would also be, i.e. there's not a "wage savings" by replacing Luis. Alternatively, when Mo leaves the club, the club will likely get a savings in guaranteed wages.
To your point, Luis' total compensation is much greater than the base wage to include performance bonuses. Those bonuses would be very handsome for last season tied to: (1) team performance: specifically the prize money earned for winning the league & topping the league phase of UCL and (2) personal performance - 2nd most goals in EPL/UCL on the team, 2nd most starts in EPL/UCL among forwards. He likely earned 2-3x his base wage in bonuses.
It's a tricky one with Robbo, there's the player side as well as the club side to be considered.
At the club level, I think we'd all agree the need for a new LB is high priority. In a perfect world, most would want to move on from Tsimikas and have Robbo step back into a reserve rotational role and see out his contract a la Bobby in '23. However, if Robbo has had talks about this and does not want that to be his role and path out, you perhaps are keen in getting funds and honoring his wishes and devotion to the club. I find this unfortunate for both club and selfish reasons: A) Love Robbo but B) apologies but Tsimikas cannot be your reserve any longer - the quality is simply not good enough for what is required.
More interestingly, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this, I saw Robbo offering flexibility with our overall schemes next year. For example, we saw him moonlighting often as a LCB in a de facto back 3 when game state demanded it. If Frimpong were truly to play as RB, deploying Robbo opposite him as opposed to Kerkez may have provided some good coverage there and security defensively so Frimpong could go forward and operate in the final third, where he thrives. Same on the other side with Kerkez/Bradley, Kerkez bombs, Bradley traditional. I guess I'm saying the 4 fullbacks would have varying profiles that could be mixed and matched. To that extent, it's a bit disappointing. Interested to see how this one plays out.
I don’t think Robertson is particularly good at moving into a back three - he does it, but is average at best. If we want that ability better to sign a player who is actually good at it or just put Gomez there.
If Kerkez comes in a keeps up his availability then Tsimikas should be fine - he didn’t cost us this past season and he isn’t going to be any worse than he already is next year.
Was more talking about Robbo’s value to be able to sink into a back 3 when game state dictates it, which will only be ~5-10ish% of the time. Just as a counterbalance to whoever is going to be on the right, especially if it’s Frimpong for defensive cover. Not suggesting a full-time switch. More options the better in my eyes. I’ve never thought Tsimi was of the quality needed, even for a rotational piece. But fair enough there
Josh, I remember you mentioning in a recent podcast that the club had identified what constitutes a good player turnover rate. Do you know what that figure is?
This might be an unpopular perspective, but a football squad is a workplace. Generally, companies target a 10-15% churn. Higher turnover can negatively impact morale, increase recruitment costs, and reduce productivity, while lower turnover may inhibit innovation.
For instance, if a company has a 15% churn rate, after about 18 years, it might have a completely new staff, with less than 5% of the original employees remaining.
So, what is considered a good churn rate for a football team? Looking at the squad from the 2019-20 season, the annual attrition rate was between 29% and 35% (this varies depending on whether fringe players are included). This roughly translates to about 10.7 to 13.4 years to completely replace the squad. My gut feeling is that a 10-year cycle is the sweet spot. Suppose we project this to September 2027 (after Virgil van Dijk and Mohamed Salah's contracts expire in two years). In that case, it’s conceivable that Curtis Jones could be the only player remaining from the 2019 squad, which would give us an attrition rate of around 35%.
You articulate this better than I do: moving on players is a necessary part of the process. The club may have a data model they are now working towards.
*This analysis has some margin for error, but I hope it helps highlight an emerging pattern.
I think I probably cursed out Robbo more than most last season, but to see him potentially leave does hurt. My concern on a less emotional level is the impact on the leadership group. Losing the other fullback as well as Robbo feels like a test of the culture. I hope they pass
I think pretty harsh on Jose Enrique - he was great on his day and infinitely better than Alberto Moreno who basically disappeared after scoring that one big goal. Injured a lot from recollection. I’d be interested to see a stats comparison particularly as things are going to quieten down of stats wise who were actually legends and who were overhyped. Like a top 10 in order stats wise of each position.
I think it is a mistake to lose Robbo. He brings nous that Kerkez cannot yet have and that Kostas is not wired to have. Kostas punches above his weight every time he plays and I love him for that, but the same things that attract Athletico to Robbo - his nous in sticky situations- should remind us that we need him.
Agree with the general thrust Josh, we need to take the emotion out of the equation. Look at all the metrics, look at the non-measurables like leadership and what the individual brings off the pitch, how much is on the table and take a view. But applying these I just can’t convince
myself that letting him go makes a lot of sense. Putting aside the low fee, what happens if Kerkez suffers a serious injury in September? I like Kostas as a player but is he good enough to play half a season week in week out for a team (hopefully) challenging on all fronts? I’m not sure.
Slot and Klopp were used to letting go of players in their previous teams. However, Klopp had to do so unwillingly. Listen back to him talking about the Götze transfer, it broke his heart. So it is understandable that when given the possibility to keep hold of his chosen players, he embraced it.
On a personal level, I absolutely admire Klopp‘s stance. As a club, it makes sense to have checks and balances.
The mantra of 'no player is bigger than the club' very much applies. And for any business to succeed, you need to employ the best, whether it's the players (in their right positions), the coach or manager or the management team behind the scenes. Importantly, you also need to trust their decisions...that's why they are employed. FSG are astute business people and while some won't like their decisions or approach, their success to date gives them enough credit to continue this strategy. In fact, I'm buzzing for the next season and hopefully a sustained period of dominance.
Do you think there’s a extent to which too much turnover, especially involving senior players in the leadership team, can become harmful to squad dynamics? Or do we reckon fresh faces will benefit us in the long run?
Great content as always Josh 👍
Of course. You can't sanction every sale. Like, you can't lose Tsimikas now unless you've got another LB lined up. But generally speaking I've always believed the whole loss of leaders thing is overblown. It doesn't tend to matter as long as you replace the leader in question with a good player. The problems arise when you start signing flops.
Does it open the door for Gutierrez? Surprised he didn‘t move to City.
Love Robertson but I think his best days are over sadly, to use your phrase Josh he’s been “at the scene of the crime” too many times this season
Unfortunately the best example of ruthlessness was Fergie in his peak years, knowing when to sell is as important as knowing when to buy
Great read as always
Agree with every word of this.
Except… except… I am a little bit wary of leaving ourselves with too much to do in one window.
But if the recruitment team back themselves to let some of these players go and get in suitable replacements, then more power to them.
good article but now FSG and the backroom team face a new challenge - what to do if Konate refuses to sign a new contract AND refuses to be transferred to another club. Will they be hard nosed enough to put Konate out to grass for the next 12 months or will he do as Trent did, play on as if nothing has changed and then join RM?
The next few weeks will tell and i would be interested in your opinion
There's nothing we can do in that sense. Liverpool aren't in a position of strength with Konate. Keeping him for another season before losing him wouldn't be the end of the world either tbh. But I think there would be some interest in selling him if he's definitely not extending. My guess is he stays. You don't want an entirely new defensive line going into next season.
Konate will also be taking a risk by doing this considering his injury history, if he reverts next season his hand will be substantially weakened when it come to moving to another club. Real are ruthless and would not be above reneging if he got injured at the wrong time.
Completely agree. Football is a performance industry. Fans want signings and fresh faces, but at the same time it seems many (at least on social media) don’t like the idea of letting certain players go. Well, we can’t really have both can we. Partly finance but also the problems that arise around playing time and keeping players happy. I think for the right offer this window it makes sense to let Robertson go.
Elite clubs remain elite clubs by selling players who are NOT critical to future wins/points while retaining (or extending in some cases) the XI and core squad to compete for trophies in the next season(s). Academy/loan players with market value also fit this definition of "up for sale". For the XI/core squad, elite clubs only sell these when: (1) the player pushes to leave, (2) a market-rate transfer fee is paid, & (3) there is a replacement in-house already or enough time to secure one.
The most important contributor to financial sustainability is not transfer net spend. It is WINNING. Winning means: more prize money from media, more sponsorships/ad revenue, more ticket sales from more matches played.
By that logic, we should sell Darwin, Fede, Harvey, Tyler, Robbo or Kostas & Caoimhin plus Ben Doak, Kieran Morrison, & Nat Phillips. They'll generate ~£140-180 million in funds to mostly offset the cash to be spent on signings this summer. Critically, the net effect is that we're stronger next season as none of those players were a core contributor to this season's league title whereas the replacements will either improve the XI (Wirtz, Kerkez) or ensure there's no drop-off (Frimpong, Mamardashvili).
Great comment, completely agree.
It actually goes even further with the free signings…
It would be better to win and lose a player on a free then force through their sale and overspend on a not good enough replacement..
This definitely applies to Luis next season. Unless his departure is associated with an Isak or Alvarez signing (highly unlikely), then keeping Luis is worth way more financially than allowing him to leave.
First and foremost, he's our 2nd best goal producer. In addition, he's our only forward with positional flexibility = he'll play at RF when Mo is at AFCON (6 matches) and at CF when Diogo/Florian don't play there. Those two points taken together = more points in the league & more wins in UCL with Luis next season vs. with a replacement.
If he left, then he'd need to be replaced and the transfer fee paid for the replacement will probably be greater than the fee obtained from a buying club (cash neutral at best). He's on his original contract so the wages of a replacement will not save much vs. Luis' wages. It's a no-brainer to keep him unless it means we sign Isak or Alvarez.
The original contract thing is a misnomer..
FSG’s contracts are heavily incentivised.. so even though it’s the same contract, the pay goes up based on performance and milestones.
Diaz will be earning a top wage.
However… the rest is as you say.
Definitely Diaz, It was the same with Trent, and would be the same with Konate.
As long as you are getting the performance on the pitch and the results.. then a player who cost £40-50m leaving for free after 5years isn’t really an issue if it helps you win.
And unless there is a ready upgrade, it’s jot necessary worth the risk of not winning to force them out the door or sell at a discount as only one year left.
Ie probably better to keep konate and lose him on a free and have a real shot at winning league and CL next year..
100% agreed on your contracts/wages comment...I could have stated my point more clearly. By "original contract", I meant Luis is on a lower "guaranteed wage" as presumably a replacement would also be, i.e. there's not a "wage savings" by replacing Luis. Alternatively, when Mo leaves the club, the club will likely get a savings in guaranteed wages.
To your point, Luis' total compensation is much greater than the base wage to include performance bonuses. Those bonuses would be very handsome for last season tied to: (1) team performance: specifically the prize money earned for winning the league & topping the league phase of UCL and (2) personal performance - 2nd most goals in EPL/UCL on the team, 2nd most starts in EPL/UCL among forwards. He likely earned 2-3x his base wage in bonuses.
I also think his base wage has increased.
We’ve seen this before with Alison and others.. that after certain moves milestone the base wages go up.
If you consider the way FSG do business as managing risk..
There is risk in overpaying on basic for a player who doesn’t end up starting and regularly scoring…
and risk in not rewarding a player who does become a consistent starter, scorer, creator… they become unhappy, push for a move etc.
There is no risk is paying a squad player squad player base… and a starting player starting player base.
The whole Ian Graham/Edwards thing was “spend your money on the pitch”
So we sign a player on a base, but if they consistently start xyz games or play percentage of minutes or whatever they get raises.
Misnomer is the wrong word sorry
It's a tricky one with Robbo, there's the player side as well as the club side to be considered.
At the club level, I think we'd all agree the need for a new LB is high priority. In a perfect world, most would want to move on from Tsimikas and have Robbo step back into a reserve rotational role and see out his contract a la Bobby in '23. However, if Robbo has had talks about this and does not want that to be his role and path out, you perhaps are keen in getting funds and honoring his wishes and devotion to the club. I find this unfortunate for both club and selfish reasons: A) Love Robbo but B) apologies but Tsimikas cannot be your reserve any longer - the quality is simply not good enough for what is required.
More interestingly, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this, I saw Robbo offering flexibility with our overall schemes next year. For example, we saw him moonlighting often as a LCB in a de facto back 3 when game state demanded it. If Frimpong were truly to play as RB, deploying Robbo opposite him as opposed to Kerkez may have provided some good coverage there and security defensively so Frimpong could go forward and operate in the final third, where he thrives. Same on the other side with Kerkez/Bradley, Kerkez bombs, Bradley traditional. I guess I'm saying the 4 fullbacks would have varying profiles that could be mixed and matched. To that extent, it's a bit disappointing. Interested to see how this one plays out.
I don’t think Robertson is particularly good at moving into a back three - he does it, but is average at best. If we want that ability better to sign a player who is actually good at it or just put Gomez there.
If Kerkez comes in a keeps up his availability then Tsimikas should be fine - he didn’t cost us this past season and he isn’t going to be any worse than he already is next year.
Was more talking about Robbo’s value to be able to sink into a back 3 when game state dictates it, which will only be ~5-10ish% of the time. Just as a counterbalance to whoever is going to be on the right, especially if it’s Frimpong for defensive cover. Not suggesting a full-time switch. More options the better in my eyes. I’ve never thought Tsimi was of the quality needed, even for a rotational piece. But fair enough there
As always, this was a really insightful article.
Josh, I remember you mentioning in a recent podcast that the club had identified what constitutes a good player turnover rate. Do you know what that figure is?
This might be an unpopular perspective, but a football squad is a workplace. Generally, companies target a 10-15% churn. Higher turnover can negatively impact morale, increase recruitment costs, and reduce productivity, while lower turnover may inhibit innovation.
For instance, if a company has a 15% churn rate, after about 18 years, it might have a completely new staff, with less than 5% of the original employees remaining.
So, what is considered a good churn rate for a football team? Looking at the squad from the 2019-20 season, the annual attrition rate was between 29% and 35% (this varies depending on whether fringe players are included). This roughly translates to about 10.7 to 13.4 years to completely replace the squad. My gut feeling is that a 10-year cycle is the sweet spot. Suppose we project this to September 2027 (after Virgil van Dijk and Mohamed Salah's contracts expire in two years). In that case, it’s conceivable that Curtis Jones could be the only player remaining from the 2019 squad, which would give us an attrition rate of around 35%.
You articulate this better than I do: moving on players is a necessary part of the process. The club may have a data model they are now working towards.
*This analysis has some margin for error, but I hope it helps highlight an emerging pattern.
I think I probably cursed out Robbo more than most last season, but to see him potentially leave does hurt. My concern on a less emotional level is the impact on the leadership group. Losing the other fullback as well as Robbo feels like a test of the culture. I hope they pass
I think pretty harsh on Jose Enrique - he was great on his day and infinitely better than Alberto Moreno who basically disappeared after scoring that one big goal. Injured a lot from recollection. I’d be interested to see a stats comparison particularly as things are going to quieten down of stats wise who were actually legends and who were overhyped. Like a top 10 in order stats wise of each position.
I think it is a mistake to lose Robbo. He brings nous that Kerkez cannot yet have and that Kostas is not wired to have. Kostas punches above his weight every time he plays and I love him for that, but the same things that attract Athletico to Robbo - his nous in sticky situations- should remind us that we need him.
Someone said it the other day: if they could relive one moment it'd be Robbo single-handedly hounding down Manchester City.
Agree with the general thrust Josh, we need to take the emotion out of the equation. Look at all the metrics, look at the non-measurables like leadership and what the individual brings off the pitch, how much is on the table and take a view. But applying these I just can’t convince
myself that letting him go makes a lot of sense. Putting aside the low fee, what happens if Kerkez suffers a serious injury in September? I like Kostas as a player but is he good enough to play half a season week in week out for a team (hopefully) challenging on all fronts? I’m not sure.
Slot and Klopp were used to letting go of players in their previous teams. However, Klopp had to do so unwillingly. Listen back to him talking about the Götze transfer, it broke his heart. So it is understandable that when given the possibility to keep hold of his chosen players, he embraced it.
On a personal level, I absolutely admire Klopp‘s stance. As a club, it makes sense to have checks and balances.