Christopher Buchtmann, a young fullback, transferred from Liverpool to Fulham on transfer deadline day in a move which revealed much about the confidence (or lack thereof) that Liverpool supporters have in their club’s administration. So why did the transfer of an under-18 German defender spark controversy?
The price was a matter of concern to many Liverpool fans. Apparently £100,000 is chicken-feed for such a promising youngster. He did only have 18 months left on his contract and he was picked up on a free transfer. But supporters on forums did not believe that it was value for money, a meaningful contribution to the player budget (even at the Academy) or have confidence that the administrators (still with a small a) would have the expertise to demand performance bonuses if he went on to be a successful adult.
Others saw it as further evidence that Rafa Benitez was wrong to conduct the extensive overhaul of academy staff last summer. They examined the role of Malcolm Elias who was the scout of young talent we had poached from Southampton but has now moved to Fulham. This view was reinforced by rumours (which just won’t go away in Sky Sports parlance) linking striking hotshot Lauri Dalla Valle with a move in the same direction – a transfer for David Amoo was later added in the mix.
For an even more select few it was evidence that Liverpool is failing to nurture promising young players. For them, Dani Pacheco should have been in the first team squad ahead of players like Voronin and Buchtmann should have had more of a chance at reserve team level, after his promotion to Melwood on the summer. Some point to him playing on the right side of midfield for much of this year and conclude that he must have been mis-treated.
Thankfully in this case it could not be used as evidence of the managers blind faith in foreign talent over local lads. The player keeping him out of the reserve team was scouser Robbie Threlfall.
For another group it was proof that there are disciplinary problems at the Academy. They point to the early departure of fellow German Marvin Pourie – who appears to have fallen put with subsequent coaches – and presume Buchtmann must have been on the ale or just showing a lack of determination.
Rumours will always spread around a football community and Liverpool is a fertile city for gossip. But the presumption that there was an intriguing story behind the move reveals much about supporters confidence in the running of the club and the unchallenged rumours of yester year.
These are the same supporters who’ve read (unchallenged) reports that Nathan Eccleston was going to move to Blackburn after being promoted to Melwood only to be sent back to the Academy because the first team base was ‘full’. Rumours also suggested we lost centreback Robert Huth last year because no-one remembered to renew his contract. And we heard of splits in the dressing room and amongst the coaches which demoralised young players.
Appointing Kenny Dalglish to oversee the Academy and taking personal responsibility for the operation may have been a smart move by Rafa but it’s not enough to give fans confidence.
Football, particularly at this level is still an opaque world, where fans see a few YouTube clips, four of five youth cup games and suddenly know the quality of a player. Where the myriad of associates (family members of the 100+ players associated with the young sides) mean that many more people might be ‘in the know’ and where simple explanations are discarded in favour of incompetece and scandal.
What if Christopher Buchtmann just fancied a bit of extra money? Perhaps that’s what brought him here in the first place. Maybe managemet has more confidence in Threlfall and Mavinga and knew his opportunities would be limited. Maybe, as a short-ish full back who’s not much younger than Insua, he didn’t fancy the challenge. And maybe he wasn’t best pleased at having to develop his right peg. Or maybe it’s all the agent / girlfriend / national team’s fault.
But the story reveals important parts of modern football: that £100,000 profit on a teenager is assumed to be bad business; there’s that much interest in an under-18 player who has never played 2 full games at reserve team level. That a little transparency is not enough; if fans don’t know the facts they fill in the gaps.